ATLANTA – Adult survivors of childhood cancers are at significantly greater risk than the general population for late-term complications related to therapy, including secondary cancers, cardiovascular disease, and cerebrovascular complications, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes.

In particular, childhood cancer survivors have an approximately eightfold higher risk for stroke, compared with their siblings, with a history of cranial irradiation being a strong, dose-dependent risk factor for stroke.

Researchers at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., are conducting a retrospective cohort study with prospective clinical follow-up and ongoing enrollment of childhood cancer survivors who are 5 or more years out of therapy.

The study includes publicly available, whole-genome sequencing data on 4,500 participants. Sifting through these data, Yadav Sapkota, PhD, a clinical research scientist at St. Jude, and his colleagues have identified a genetic variant strongly associated with stroke risk in survivors of European ancestry, and they have replicated the finding in survivors of African ancestry.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Dr. Sapkota describes his group’s findings and potential research and clinical implications.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC, the fundraising and awareness organization of St. Jude. Dr. Sapkota declared no conflict of interest.

ATLANTA – Adult survivors of childhood cancers are at significantly greater risk than the general population for late-term complications related to therapy, including secondary cancers, cardiovascular disease, and cerebrovascular complications, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes.

In particular, childhood cancer survivors have an approximately eightfold higher risk for stroke, compared with their siblings, with a history of cranial irradiation being a strong, dose-dependent risk factor for stroke.

Researchers at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., are conducting a retrospective cohort study with prospective clinical follow-up and ongoing enrollment of childhood cancer survivors who are 5 or more years out of therapy.

The study includes publicly available, whole-genome sequencing data on 4,500 participants. Sifting through these data, Yadav Sapkota, PhD, a clinical research scientist at St. Jude, and his colleagues have identified a genetic variant strongly associated with stroke risk in survivors of European ancestry, and they have replicated the finding in survivors of African ancestry.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Dr. Sapkota describes his group’s findings and potential research and clinical implications.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC, the fundraising and awareness organization of St. Jude. Dr. Sapkota declared no conflict of interest.

ATLANTA – Adult survivors of childhood cancers are at significantly greater risk than the general population for late-term complications related to therapy, including secondary cancers, cardiovascular disease, and cerebrovascular complications, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes.

In particular, childhood cancer survivors have an approximately eightfold higher risk for stroke, compared with their siblings, with a history of cranial irradiation being a strong, dose-dependent risk factor for stroke.

Researchers at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., are conducting a retrospective cohort study with prospective clinical follow-up and ongoing enrollment of childhood cancer survivors who are 5 or more years out of therapy.

The study includes publicly available, whole-genome sequencing data on 4,500 participants. Sifting through these data, Yadav Sapkota, PhD, a clinical research scientist at St. Jude, and his colleagues have identified a genetic variant strongly associated with stroke risk in survivors of European ancestry, and they have replicated the finding in survivors of African ancestry.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Dr. Sapkota describes his group’s findings and potential research and clinical implications.

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and ALSAC, the fundraising and awareness organization of St. Jude. Dr. Sapkota declared no conflict of interest.

Prenatal diagnosis of genetic anomalies is important for diagnosing lethal genetic conditions before birth. It can provide information for parents regarding pregnancy options and allow for recurrence risk counseling and the potential use of preimplantation genetic testing in the next pregnancy. For decades, a karyotype was used to analyze amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling specimens; in recent years, chromosomal microarray analysis provides more information about significant chromosomal abnormalities, including microdeletions and microduplications. However, microarrays also have limitations, as they do not identify base pair changes associated with single-gene disorders.

The advent of next-generation sequencing has substantially reduced the cost of DNA sequencing. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) can sequence the entire genome— both the coding (exonic) and noncoding (intronic) regions—while exome sequencing analyzes only the protein-coding exons, which make up 1% to 2% of the genome and about 85% of the protein-coding genes associated with known human disease. Exome sequencing increasingly is used in cases of suspected genetic disorders when other tests have been unrevealing.

In this Update, we review recent reports of prenatal exome sequencing, including studies exploring the yield in fetuses with structural anomalies; the importance of prenatal phenotyping; the perspectives of parents and health care professionals who were involved in prenatal exome sequencing studies; and a summary of a joint position statement from 3 societies regarding prenatal sequencing.

Prenatal whole exome sequencing has potential utility, with some limitations 

Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:758-767. 
 

Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY, et al; for the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes Consortium. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:747-757. 

Exome sequencing has been shown to identify an underlying genetic cause in 25% to 30% of children with an undiagnosed suspected genetic disorder. Two studies recently published in the Lancet sought to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) in the setting of fetal structural anomalies when karyotype and microarray results were normal. 

Continue to: Details of the studies...

In a prospective cohort study by Petrovski and colleagues, DNA samples from 234 fetuses with a structural anomaly (identified on ultrasonography) and both parents (parent-fetus "trios") were used for analysis. WES identified diagnostic genetic variants in 24 trios (10%). An additional 46 (20%) had variants that indicated pathogenicity but without sufficient evidence to be considered diagnostic. 

The anomalies with the highest frequency of a genetic diagnosis were lymphatic, 24%; skeletal, 24%; central nervous system, 22%; and renal, 16%; while cardiac anomalies had the lowest yield at 5%. 

In another prospective cohort study, known as the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE), Lord and colleagues sequenced DNA samples from 610 parent-fetus trios, but they restricted sequencing to a predefined list of 1,628 genes. Diagnostic genetic variants were identified in 52 fetuses (8.5%), while 24 (3.9%) had a variant of uncertain significance that was thought to be of potential clinical usefulness. 

Fetuses with multiple anomalies had the highest genetic yield (15.4%), followed by skeletal (15.4%) and cardiac anomalies (11.1%), with the lowest yield in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (3.2%). 

Diagnostic yield is high, but prenatal utility is limited 

Both studies showed a clinically significant diagnostic yield of 8% to 10% for prenatal exome sequencing in cases of fetal structural anomalies with normal karyotype and microarray testing. While this yield demonstrates the utility of prenatal exome sequencing, it is significantly lower than what has been reported in postnatal studies. One of the reasons for this is the inherent limitation of prenatal phenotyping (discussed below). 

The importance of prenatal phenotyping 

Aarabi M, Sniezek O, Jiang H, et al. Importance of complete phenotyping in prenatal whole exome sequencing. Hum Genet. 2018;137:175-181. 

In postnatal exome sequencing, the physical exam, imaging findings, and laboratory results are components of the phenotype that are used to interpret the sequencing data. Prenatal phenotyping, however, is limited to the use of fetal ultrasonography and, occasionally, the addition of magnetic resonance imaging. Prenatal phenotyping is without the benefit of an exam to detect more subtle anomalies or functional status, such as developmental delay, seizures, or failure to thrive. 

When a structural anomaly is identified on prenatal ultrasonography, it is especially important that detailed imaging be undertaken to detect other anomalies, including more subtle facial features and dysmorphology. 

Value of reanalyzing exome sequencing data 

Aarabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 20 fetuses with structural anomalies and normal karyotype and microarray. They performed trio exome sequencing first using information available only prenatally and then conducted a reanalysis using information available after delivery. 

With prenatal phenotyping only, the investigators identified no pathogenic, or likely pathogenic, variants. On reanalysis of combined prenatal and postnatal findings, however, they identified pathogenic variants in 20% of cases. 

Significance of the findings 

This study highlights both the importance of a careful, detailed fetal ultrasonography study and the possible additional benefit of a postnatal examination (such as an autopsy) in order to yield improved results. In addition, the authors noted that the development of a prenatal phenotype-genotype database would significantly help exome sequencing interpretation in the prenatal setting.

Social impact of WES: Parent and provider perspectives 

Wou K, Weitz T, McCormack C, et al. Parental perceptions of prenatal whole exome sequencing (PPPWES) study. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:801-811. 

Horn R, Parker M. Health professionals' and researchers' perspectives on prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing: 'We can't shut the door now, the genie's out, we need to refine it.' PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204158. 

As health care providers enter a new era of prenatal genetic testing with exome sequencing, it is crucial to the path forward that we obtain perspectives from the parents and providers who participated in these studies. Notably, in both of the previously discussed Lancet reports, the authors interviewed the participants to discuss the challenges involved and identify strategies for improving future testing. 

Continue to: What parents want...

To ascertain the perceptions of couples who underwent prenatal WES, Wou and colleagues conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the Fetal Sequencing Study regarding their experience. They interviewed 29 parents from 17 pregnancies, including a mix of those who had pathogenic prenatal results, terminated prior to receiving the results, and had normal results. 
 

Expressed feelings and desires. Parents recalled feelings of anxiety and stress around the time of diagnosis and the need for help with coping while awaiting results. The majority of parents reported that they would like to be told about uncertain results, but that desire decreased as the certainty of results decreased. 

Parents were overall satisfied with the prenatal genetic testing experience, but they added that they would have liked to receive written materials beforehand and a written report of the test results (including negative cases). They also would like to have connected with other families with similar experiences, to have received results sooner, and to have an in-person meeting after telephone disclosure of the results. 

Health professionals articulate complexity of prenatal genomics 

In a qualitative interview study to explore critical issues involved in the clinical practice use of prenatal genomics, Horn and Parker conducted interviews with 20 health care professionals who were involved in the previously described PAGE trial. Patient recruiters, midwives, genetic counselors, research assistants, and laboratory staff were included. 

Interviewees cited numerous challenges involved in their day-to-day work with prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing, including: 

• the complexity of achieving valid parental consent at a time of vulnerability 
• management of parent expectations  
• transmitting and comprehending complex information 
• the usefulness of information 
• the difficulty of a long turnaround time for study results. 

All the interviewees agreed that prenatal exome sequencing studies contribute to knowledge generation and the advancement of technology. 

The authors concluded that an appropriate next step would be the development of appropriate guidelines for good ethical practice that address the concerns encountered in genomics clinical practice.

Societies offer guidance on using genome and exome sequencing 

International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:6-9. 

In response to the rapid integration of exome sequencing for genetic diagnosis, several professional societies—the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, and Perinatal Quality Foundation—issued a joint statement addressing the clinical use of prenatal diagnostic genome wide sequencing, including exome sequencing. 

Continue to: Guidance at a glance...

The societies' recommendations are summarized as follows: 

• Exome sequencing is best done as a trio analysis, with fetal and both parental samples sequenced and analyzed together. 
• Extensive pretest education, counseling, and informed consent, as well as posttest counseling, are essential. This should include:  

—the types of results to be conveyed (variants that are pathogenic, likely pathogenic, of uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign) 
—the possibility that results will not be obtained or may not be available before the birth of the fetus 
—realistic expectations regarding the likelihood that a significant result will be obtained 
—the timeframe to results 
—the option to include or exclude in the results incidental or secondary findings (such as an unexpected childhood disorder, cancer susceptibility genes, adult-onset disorders) 
—the possibility of uncovering nonpaternity or consanguinity 
—the potential reanalysis of results over time 
—how data are stored, who has access, and for what purpose. 

• Fetal sequencing may be beneficial in the following scenarios: 

—multiple fetal anomalies or a single major anomaly suggestive of a genetic disorder, when the microarray is negative 
—no microarray result is available, but the fetus exhibits a pattern of anomalies strongly suggestive of a single-gene disorder  
—a prior undiagnosed fetus (or child) with anomalies suggestive of a genetic etiology, and with similar anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. Providers also can consider sequencing samples from both parents prior to preimplantation genetic testing to check for shared carrier status for autosomal recessive mutations, although obtaining exome sequencing from the prior affected fetus (or child) is ideal. 
—history of recurrent stillbirths of unknown etiology, with a recurrent pattern of anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. 

• Interpretation of results should be done using a multidisciplinary team-based approach, including clinical scientists, geneticists, genetic counselors, and experts in prenatal diagnosis. 
• Where possible and after informed consent, reanalysis of results should be undertaken if a future pregnancy is planned or ongoing, and a significant amount of time has elapsed since the time the result was last reported. 
• Parents should be given a written report of test results. 

Summary

Exome sequencing is increasingly becoming mainstream in postnatal genetic testing, and it is emerging as the newest diagnostic frontier in prenatal genetic testing. However, there are limitations to prenatal exome sequencing, including issues with consent at a vulnerable time for parents, limited information available regarding the phenotype, and results that may not be available before the birth of a fetus. Providers should be familiar with the indications for testing, the possible results, the limitations of prenatal phenotyping, and the implications for future pregnancies. 
 

Prenatal diagnosis of genetic anomalies is important for diagnosing lethal genetic conditions before birth. It can provide information for parents regarding pregnancy options and allow for recurrence risk counseling and the potential use of preimplantation genetic testing in the next pregnancy. For decades, a karyotype was used to analyze amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling specimens; in recent years, chromosomal microarray analysis provides more information about significant chromosomal abnormalities, including microdeletions and microduplications. However, microarrays also have limitations, as they do not identify base pair changes associated with single-gene disorders.

The advent of next-generation sequencing has substantially reduced the cost of DNA sequencing. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) can sequence the entire genome— both the coding (exonic) and noncoding (intronic) regions—while exome sequencing analyzes only the protein-coding exons, which make up 1% to 2% of the genome and about 85% of the protein-coding genes associated with known human disease. Exome sequencing increasingly is used in cases of suspected genetic disorders when other tests have been unrevealing.

In this Update, we review recent reports of prenatal exome sequencing, including studies exploring the yield in fetuses with structural anomalies; the importance of prenatal phenotyping; the perspectives of parents and health care professionals who were involved in prenatal exome sequencing studies; and a summary of a joint position statement from 3 societies regarding prenatal sequencing.

Prenatal whole exome sequencing has potential utility, with some limitations 

Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:758-767. 
 

Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY, et al; for the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes Consortium. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:747-757. 

Exome sequencing has been shown to identify an underlying genetic cause in 25% to 30% of children with an undiagnosed suspected genetic disorder. Two studies recently published in the Lancet sought to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) in the setting of fetal structural anomalies when karyotype and microarray results were normal. 

Continue to: Details of the studies...

In a prospective cohort study by Petrovski and colleagues, DNA samples from 234 fetuses with a structural anomaly (identified on ultrasonography) and both parents (parent-fetus "trios") were used for analysis. WES identified diagnostic genetic variants in 24 trios (10%). An additional 46 (20%) had variants that indicated pathogenicity but without sufficient evidence to be considered diagnostic. 

The anomalies with the highest frequency of a genetic diagnosis were lymphatic, 24%; skeletal, 24%; central nervous system, 22%; and renal, 16%; while cardiac anomalies had the lowest yield at 5%. 

In another prospective cohort study, known as the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE), Lord and colleagues sequenced DNA samples from 610 parent-fetus trios, but they restricted sequencing to a predefined list of 1,628 genes. Diagnostic genetic variants were identified in 52 fetuses (8.5%), while 24 (3.9%) had a variant of uncertain significance that was thought to be of potential clinical usefulness. 

Fetuses with multiple anomalies had the highest genetic yield (15.4%), followed by skeletal (15.4%) and cardiac anomalies (11.1%), with the lowest yield in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (3.2%). 

Diagnostic yield is high, but prenatal utility is limited 

Both studies showed a clinically significant diagnostic yield of 8% to 10% for prenatal exome sequencing in cases of fetal structural anomalies with normal karyotype and microarray testing. While this yield demonstrates the utility of prenatal exome sequencing, it is significantly lower than what has been reported in postnatal studies. One of the reasons for this is the inherent limitation of prenatal phenotyping (discussed below). 

The importance of prenatal phenotyping 

Aarabi M, Sniezek O, Jiang H, et al. Importance of complete phenotyping in prenatal whole exome sequencing. Hum Genet. 2018;137:175-181. 

In postnatal exome sequencing, the physical exam, imaging findings, and laboratory results are components of the phenotype that are used to interpret the sequencing data. Prenatal phenotyping, however, is limited to the use of fetal ultrasonography and, occasionally, the addition of magnetic resonance imaging. Prenatal phenotyping is without the benefit of an exam to detect more subtle anomalies or functional status, such as developmental delay, seizures, or failure to thrive. 

When a structural anomaly is identified on prenatal ultrasonography, it is especially important that detailed imaging be undertaken to detect other anomalies, including more subtle facial features and dysmorphology. 

Value of reanalyzing exome sequencing data 

Aarabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 20 fetuses with structural anomalies and normal karyotype and microarray. They performed trio exome sequencing first using information available only prenatally and then conducted a reanalysis using information available after delivery. 

With prenatal phenotyping only, the investigators identified no pathogenic, or likely pathogenic, variants. On reanalysis of combined prenatal and postnatal findings, however, they identified pathogenic variants in 20% of cases. 

Significance of the findings 

This study highlights both the importance of a careful, detailed fetal ultrasonography study and the possible additional benefit of a postnatal examination (such as an autopsy) in order to yield improved results. In addition, the authors noted that the development of a prenatal phenotype-genotype database would significantly help exome sequencing interpretation in the prenatal setting.

Social impact of WES: Parent and provider perspectives 

Wou K, Weitz T, McCormack C, et al. Parental perceptions of prenatal whole exome sequencing (PPPWES) study. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:801-811. 

Horn R, Parker M. Health professionals' and researchers' perspectives on prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing: 'We can't shut the door now, the genie's out, we need to refine it.' PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204158. 

As health care providers enter a new era of prenatal genetic testing with exome sequencing, it is crucial to the path forward that we obtain perspectives from the parents and providers who participated in these studies. Notably, in both of the previously discussed Lancet reports, the authors interviewed the participants to discuss the challenges involved and identify strategies for improving future testing. 

Continue to: What parents want...

To ascertain the perceptions of couples who underwent prenatal WES, Wou and colleagues conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the Fetal Sequencing Study regarding their experience. They interviewed 29 parents from 17 pregnancies, including a mix of those who had pathogenic prenatal results, terminated prior to receiving the results, and had normal results. 
 

Expressed feelings and desires. Parents recalled feelings of anxiety and stress around the time of diagnosis and the need for help with coping while awaiting results. The majority of parents reported that they would like to be told about uncertain results, but that desire decreased as the certainty of results decreased. 

Parents were overall satisfied with the prenatal genetic testing experience, but they added that they would have liked to receive written materials beforehand and a written report of the test results (including negative cases). They also would like to have connected with other families with similar experiences, to have received results sooner, and to have an in-person meeting after telephone disclosure of the results. 

Health professionals articulate complexity of prenatal genomics 

In a qualitative interview study to explore critical issues involved in the clinical practice use of prenatal genomics, Horn and Parker conducted interviews with 20 health care professionals who were involved in the previously described PAGE trial. Patient recruiters, midwives, genetic counselors, research assistants, and laboratory staff were included. 

Interviewees cited numerous challenges involved in their day-to-day work with prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing, including: 

• the complexity of achieving valid parental consent at a time of vulnerability 
• management of parent expectations  
• transmitting and comprehending complex information 
• the usefulness of information 
• the difficulty of a long turnaround time for study results. 

All the interviewees agreed that prenatal exome sequencing studies contribute to knowledge generation and the advancement of technology. 

The authors concluded that an appropriate next step would be the development of appropriate guidelines for good ethical practice that address the concerns encountered in genomics clinical practice.

Societies offer guidance on using genome and exome sequencing 

International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:6-9. 

In response to the rapid integration of exome sequencing for genetic diagnosis, several professional societies—the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, and Perinatal Quality Foundation—issued a joint statement addressing the clinical use of prenatal diagnostic genome wide sequencing, including exome sequencing. 

Continue to: Guidance at a glance...

The societies' recommendations are summarized as follows: 

• Exome sequencing is best done as a trio analysis, with fetal and both parental samples sequenced and analyzed together. 
• Extensive pretest education, counseling, and informed consent, as well as posttest counseling, are essential. This should include:  

—the types of results to be conveyed (variants that are pathogenic, likely pathogenic, of uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign) 
—the possibility that results will not be obtained or may not be available before the birth of the fetus 
—realistic expectations regarding the likelihood that a significant result will be obtained 
—the timeframe to results 
—the option to include or exclude in the results incidental or secondary findings (such as an unexpected childhood disorder, cancer susceptibility genes, adult-onset disorders) 
—the possibility of uncovering nonpaternity or consanguinity 
—the potential reanalysis of results over time 
—how data are stored, who has access, and for what purpose. 

• Fetal sequencing may be beneficial in the following scenarios: 

—multiple fetal anomalies or a single major anomaly suggestive of a genetic disorder, when the microarray is negative 
—no microarray result is available, but the fetus exhibits a pattern of anomalies strongly suggestive of a single-gene disorder  
—a prior undiagnosed fetus (or child) with anomalies suggestive of a genetic etiology, and with similar anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. Providers also can consider sequencing samples from both parents prior to preimplantation genetic testing to check for shared carrier status for autosomal recessive mutations, although obtaining exome sequencing from the prior affected fetus (or child) is ideal. 
—history of recurrent stillbirths of unknown etiology, with a recurrent pattern of anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. 

• Interpretation of results should be done using a multidisciplinary team-based approach, including clinical scientists, geneticists, genetic counselors, and experts in prenatal diagnosis. 
• Where possible and after informed consent, reanalysis of results should be undertaken if a future pregnancy is planned or ongoing, and a significant amount of time has elapsed since the time the result was last reported. 
• Parents should be given a written report of test results. 

Summary

Exome sequencing is increasingly becoming mainstream in postnatal genetic testing, and it is emerging as the newest diagnostic frontier in prenatal genetic testing. However, there are limitations to prenatal exome sequencing, including issues with consent at a vulnerable time for parents, limited information available regarding the phenotype, and results that may not be available before the birth of a fetus. Providers should be familiar with the indications for testing, the possible results, the limitations of prenatal phenotyping, and the implications for future pregnancies. 
 

Prenatal diagnosis of genetic anomalies is important for diagnosing lethal genetic conditions before birth. It can provide information for parents regarding pregnancy options and allow for recurrence risk counseling and the potential use of preimplantation genetic testing in the next pregnancy. For decades, a karyotype was used to analyze amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling specimens; in recent years, chromosomal microarray analysis provides more information about significant chromosomal abnormalities, including microdeletions and microduplications. However, microarrays also have limitations, as they do not identify base pair changes associated with single-gene disorders.

The advent of next-generation sequencing has substantially reduced the cost of DNA sequencing. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) can sequence the entire genome— both the coding (exonic) and noncoding (intronic) regions—while exome sequencing analyzes only the protein-coding exons, which make up 1% to 2% of the genome and about 85% of the protein-coding genes associated with known human disease. Exome sequencing increasingly is used in cases of suspected genetic disorders when other tests have been unrevealing.

In this Update, we review recent reports of prenatal exome sequencing, including studies exploring the yield in fetuses with structural anomalies; the importance of prenatal phenotyping; the perspectives of parents and health care professionals who were involved in prenatal exome sequencing studies; and a summary of a joint position statement from 3 societies regarding prenatal sequencing.

Prenatal whole exome sequencing has potential utility, with some limitations 

Petrovski S, Aggarwal V, Giordano JL, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:758-767. 
 

Lord J, McMullan DJ, Eberhardt RY, et al; for the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes Consortium. Prenatal exome sequencing analysis in fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasonography (PAGE): a cohort study. Lancet. 2019;393:747-757. 

Exome sequencing has been shown to identify an underlying genetic cause in 25% to 30% of children with an undiagnosed suspected genetic disorder. Two studies recently published in the Lancet sought to determine the incremental diagnostic yield of prenatal whole exome sequencing (WES) in the setting of fetal structural anomalies when karyotype and microarray results were normal. 

Continue to: Details of the studies...

In a prospective cohort study by Petrovski and colleagues, DNA samples from 234 fetuses with a structural anomaly (identified on ultrasonography) and both parents (parent-fetus "trios") were used for analysis. WES identified diagnostic genetic variants in 24 trios (10%). An additional 46 (20%) had variants that indicated pathogenicity but without sufficient evidence to be considered diagnostic. 

The anomalies with the highest frequency of a genetic diagnosis were lymphatic, 24%; skeletal, 24%; central nervous system, 22%; and renal, 16%; while cardiac anomalies had the lowest yield at 5%. 

In another prospective cohort study, known as the Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes (PAGE), Lord and colleagues sequenced DNA samples from 610 parent-fetus trios, but they restricted sequencing to a predefined list of 1,628 genes. Diagnostic genetic variants were identified in 52 fetuses (8.5%), while 24 (3.9%) had a variant of uncertain significance that was thought to be of potential clinical usefulness. 

Fetuses with multiple anomalies had the highest genetic yield (15.4%), followed by skeletal (15.4%) and cardiac anomalies (11.1%), with the lowest yield in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (3.2%). 

Diagnostic yield is high, but prenatal utility is limited 

Both studies showed a clinically significant diagnostic yield of 8% to 10% for prenatal exome sequencing in cases of fetal structural anomalies with normal karyotype and microarray testing. While this yield demonstrates the utility of prenatal exome sequencing, it is significantly lower than what has been reported in postnatal studies. One of the reasons for this is the inherent limitation of prenatal phenotyping (discussed below). 

The importance of prenatal phenotyping 

Aarabi M, Sniezek O, Jiang H, et al. Importance of complete phenotyping in prenatal whole exome sequencing. Hum Genet. 2018;137:175-181. 

In postnatal exome sequencing, the physical exam, imaging findings, and laboratory results are components of the phenotype that are used to interpret the sequencing data. Prenatal phenotyping, however, is limited to the use of fetal ultrasonography and, occasionally, the addition of magnetic resonance imaging. Prenatal phenotyping is without the benefit of an exam to detect more subtle anomalies or functional status, such as developmental delay, seizures, or failure to thrive. 

When a structural anomaly is identified on prenatal ultrasonography, it is especially important that detailed imaging be undertaken to detect other anomalies, including more subtle facial features and dysmorphology. 

Value of reanalyzing exome sequencing data 

Aarabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 20 fetuses with structural anomalies and normal karyotype and microarray. They performed trio exome sequencing first using information available only prenatally and then conducted a reanalysis using information available after delivery. 

With prenatal phenotyping only, the investigators identified no pathogenic, or likely pathogenic, variants. On reanalysis of combined prenatal and postnatal findings, however, they identified pathogenic variants in 20% of cases. 

Significance of the findings 

This study highlights both the importance of a careful, detailed fetal ultrasonography study and the possible additional benefit of a postnatal examination (such as an autopsy) in order to yield improved results. In addition, the authors noted that the development of a prenatal phenotype-genotype database would significantly help exome sequencing interpretation in the prenatal setting.

Social impact of WES: Parent and provider perspectives 

Wou K, Weitz T, McCormack C, et al. Parental perceptions of prenatal whole exome sequencing (PPPWES) study. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:801-811. 

Horn R, Parker M. Health professionals' and researchers' perspectives on prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing: 'We can't shut the door now, the genie's out, we need to refine it.' PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204158. 

As health care providers enter a new era of prenatal genetic testing with exome sequencing, it is crucial to the path forward that we obtain perspectives from the parents and providers who participated in these studies. Notably, in both of the previously discussed Lancet reports, the authors interviewed the participants to discuss the challenges involved and identify strategies for improving future testing. 

Continue to: What parents want...

To ascertain the perceptions of couples who underwent prenatal WES, Wou and colleagues conducted semi-structured interviews with participants from the Fetal Sequencing Study regarding their experience. They interviewed 29 parents from 17 pregnancies, including a mix of those who had pathogenic prenatal results, terminated prior to receiving the results, and had normal results. 
 

Expressed feelings and desires. Parents recalled feelings of anxiety and stress around the time of diagnosis and the need for help with coping while awaiting results. The majority of parents reported that they would like to be told about uncertain results, but that desire decreased as the certainty of results decreased. 

Parents were overall satisfied with the prenatal genetic testing experience, but they added that they would have liked to receive written materials beforehand and a written report of the test results (including negative cases). They also would like to have connected with other families with similar experiences, to have received results sooner, and to have an in-person meeting after telephone disclosure of the results. 

Health professionals articulate complexity of prenatal genomics 

In a qualitative interview study to explore critical issues involved in the clinical practice use of prenatal genomics, Horn and Parker conducted interviews with 20 health care professionals who were involved in the previously described PAGE trial. Patient recruiters, midwives, genetic counselors, research assistants, and laboratory staff were included. 

Interviewees cited numerous challenges involved in their day-to-day work with prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing, including: 

• the complexity of achieving valid parental consent at a time of vulnerability 
• management of parent expectations  
• transmitting and comprehending complex information 
• the usefulness of information 
• the difficulty of a long turnaround time for study results. 

All the interviewees agreed that prenatal exome sequencing studies contribute to knowledge generation and the advancement of technology. 

The authors concluded that an appropriate next step would be the development of appropriate guidelines for good ethical practice that address the concerns encountered in genomics clinical practice.

Societies offer guidance on using genome and exome sequencing 

International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Perinatal Quality Foundation. Joint Position Statement from the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD), the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), and the Perinatal Quality Foundation (PQF) on the use of genome-wide sequencing for fetal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2018;38:6-9. 

In response to the rapid integration of exome sequencing for genetic diagnosis, several professional societies—the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, and Perinatal Quality Foundation—issued a joint statement addressing the clinical use of prenatal diagnostic genome wide sequencing, including exome sequencing. 

Continue to: Guidance at a glance...

The societies' recommendations are summarized as follows: 

• Exome sequencing is best done as a trio analysis, with fetal and both parental samples sequenced and analyzed together. 
• Extensive pretest education, counseling, and informed consent, as well as posttest counseling, are essential. This should include:  

—the types of results to be conveyed (variants that are pathogenic, likely pathogenic, of uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign) 
—the possibility that results will not be obtained or may not be available before the birth of the fetus 
—realistic expectations regarding the likelihood that a significant result will be obtained 
—the timeframe to results 
—the option to include or exclude in the results incidental or secondary findings (such as an unexpected childhood disorder, cancer susceptibility genes, adult-onset disorders) 
—the possibility of uncovering nonpaternity or consanguinity 
—the potential reanalysis of results over time 
—how data are stored, who has access, and for what purpose. 

• Fetal sequencing may be beneficial in the following scenarios: 

—multiple fetal anomalies or a single major anomaly suggestive of a genetic disorder, when the microarray is negative 
—no microarray result is available, but the fetus exhibits a pattern of anomalies strongly suggestive of a single-gene disorder  
—a prior undiagnosed fetus (or child) with anomalies suggestive of a genetic etiology, and with similar anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. Providers also can consider sequencing samples from both parents prior to preimplantation genetic testing to check for shared carrier status for autosomal recessive mutations, although obtaining exome sequencing from the prior affected fetus (or child) is ideal. 
—history of recurrent stillbirths of unknown etiology, with a recurrent pattern of anomalies in the current pregnancy, with normal karyotype or microarray. 

• Interpretation of results should be done using a multidisciplinary team-based approach, including clinical scientists, geneticists, genetic counselors, and experts in prenatal diagnosis. 
• Where possible and after informed consent, reanalysis of results should be undertaken if a future pregnancy is planned or ongoing, and a significant amount of time has elapsed since the time the result was last reported. 
• Parents should be given a written report of test results. 

Summary

Exome sequencing is increasingly becoming mainstream in postnatal genetic testing, and it is emerging as the newest diagnostic frontier in prenatal genetic testing. However, there are limitations to prenatal exome sequencing, including issues with consent at a vulnerable time for parents, limited information available regarding the phenotype, and results that may not be available before the birth of a fetus. Providers should be familiar with the indications for testing, the possible results, the limitations of prenatal phenotyping, and the implications for future pregnancies. 
 

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Savolainen-Peltonen H, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Hoti F, et al. Use of postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in Finland: nationwide case-control study. BMJ. 2019;364:1665.

Alzheimer disease represents the most common cause of dementia. Although sex hormones may play a role in the etiology of AD in women, studies addressing the impact of menopausal HT on risk of AD have conflicting findings.

Finnish researchers Savolainen-Peltonen and colleagues aimed to compare postmenopausal HT use in women with and without AD. They used national drug and population registries to identify patients with AD, control women without a diagnosis of AD, and data on postmenopausal HT use.

Details of the study

In Finland, reimbursement for treatment related to AD requires cognitive testing, brain imaging, and a statement from a specialist physician. Using national records, the study investigators identified 84,739 women with a diagnosis of AD during the years 1999–2013 and the same number of control women (without AD) during the same period. A national drug reimbursement registry was used to identify HT use from the year 1994.

Findings. Women diagnosed with AD were more likely to have been current or former users of systemic HT than controls (18.6% vs 17.0%, P<.001). The odds ratios (ORs) for AD were 1.09 for the estradiol-only group and 1.17 for the estrogen-progestin group (P<.05 for both comparisons).

Initiation of HT prior to age 60 was less common among AD cases than controls (P = .006). As a continuous variable, age was not a determinant for disease risk in estradiol-only users (OR, 1.0), estrogen-progestin users (OR, 1.0), or any HT use (OR, 1.0).

The exclusive use of vaginal estrogen therapy was not associated with an elevated risk of AD (OR, 0.99).

Study strengths and limitations

This study on the association between HT and AD included a very large number of participants from a national population registry, and the use of HT was objectively determined from a controlled registry (not self-reported). In addition, AD was accurately diagnosed and differentiated from other forms of dementia.

Limitations of the study include the lack of baseline demographic data for AD risk factors for both HT users and controls. Further, an increased risk of AD may have been a cause for HT use and not a consequence, given that initial cognitive impairments may occur 7 to 8 years prior to AD diagnosis and the possibility exists that such women may have sought help for cognitive symptoms from HT. In addition, the lack of brain imaging or neurologic examination to exclude AD might also account for undiagnosed disease in controls. The authors noted that they were unable to compare the use of oral and transdermal HT preparations or the use of cyclic and continuous estrogen-progestin therapy.

Amyloid brain imaging with a PET tracer changed clinical management for 60% of patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 63% of those with dementia, according to the IDEAS (Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning) study published in JAMA .

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Diagnoses changed from Alzheimer’s disease to non–Alzheimer’s disease in 25% of 11,409 patients and from non–Alzheimer’s disease to Alzheimer’s disease in 10.5%, reported Gil Rabinovici, MD, and his colleagues. The use of Alzheimer’s disease drugs doubled in amyloid-positive MCI patients, and increased by a third in amyloid-positive dementia patients. Physicians involved in the study said the scans provided key clinical information in 82% of cases with post-scan management changes.

Scans also benefited amyloid-negative patients. Before the scan, 71% of these carried an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis; afterward, just 10% did, opening the way for an accurate diagnosis and more effective treatment.

The study was powered to detect a 30% or greater change in the MCI and dementia groups. The 60% change emphasize how useful amyloid PET scans could be in clinical practice, Dr. Rabinovici, the study’s lead author and principal investigator, said in a press statement.

“We are impressed by the magnitude of these results, which make it clear that amyloid PET imaging can have a major impact on how we diagnose and care for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rabinovici of the University of California, San Francisco.

Alzheimer’s Association leaders were similarly pleased.

“These results present highly credible, large-scale evidence that amyloid PET imaging can be a powerful tool to improve the accuracy of Alzheimer’s diagnosis and lead to better medical management, especially in difficult-to-diagnose cases,” said Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association and a coauthor of the study. “It is important that amyloid PET imaging be more broadly accessible to those who need it.”

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Next steps

Ultimately, investigators hope the nationwide-wide, open-label study will prove the clinical value of amyloid PET scanning and convince the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make the test a fully covered service for those who meet the appropriate use criteria set forth by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

IDEAS’ second goal – showing that the scans improve health outcomes – is scheduled for 2020. These data are a key component of the CMS decision, but they might be a tough sell, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Jack and Dr. Petersen are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“For CMS to cover the cost of amyloid PET, it must be demonstrated that the result of a scan has an effect on patient outcomes, not just patient care processes – and, without a disease-modifying therapy available, that might be a challenge,” they wrote.

IDEAS is a funding collaboration of the CMS, the Alzheimer’s Association, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals/Eli Lilly, General Electric Healthcare, Piramal Imaging, and the American College of Radiology. Dr. Rabinovici had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rabinovici GD et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2000.

Amyloid brain imaging with a PET tracer changed clinical management for 60% of patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 63% of those with dementia, according to the IDEAS (Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning) study published in JAMA .

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Diagnoses changed from Alzheimer’s disease to non–Alzheimer’s disease in 25% of 11,409 patients and from non–Alzheimer’s disease to Alzheimer’s disease in 10.5%, reported Gil Rabinovici, MD, and his colleagues. The use of Alzheimer’s disease drugs doubled in amyloid-positive MCI patients, and increased by a third in amyloid-positive dementia patients. Physicians involved in the study said the scans provided key clinical information in 82% of cases with post-scan management changes.

Scans also benefited amyloid-negative patients. Before the scan, 71% of these carried an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis; afterward, just 10% did, opening the way for an accurate diagnosis and more effective treatment.

The study was powered to detect a 30% or greater change in the MCI and dementia groups. The 60% change emphasize how useful amyloid PET scans could be in clinical practice, Dr. Rabinovici, the study’s lead author and principal investigator, said in a press statement.

“We are impressed by the magnitude of these results, which make it clear that amyloid PET imaging can have a major impact on how we diagnose and care for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rabinovici of the University of California, San Francisco.

Alzheimer’s Association leaders were similarly pleased.

“These results present highly credible, large-scale evidence that amyloid PET imaging can be a powerful tool to improve the accuracy of Alzheimer’s diagnosis and lead to better medical management, especially in difficult-to-diagnose cases,” said Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association and a coauthor of the study. “It is important that amyloid PET imaging be more broadly accessible to those who need it.”

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Next steps

Ultimately, investigators hope the nationwide-wide, open-label study will prove the clinical value of amyloid PET scanning and convince the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make the test a fully covered service for those who meet the appropriate use criteria set forth by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

IDEAS’ second goal – showing that the scans improve health outcomes – is scheduled for 2020. These data are a key component of the CMS decision, but they might be a tough sell, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Jack and Dr. Petersen are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“For CMS to cover the cost of amyloid PET, it must be demonstrated that the result of a scan has an effect on patient outcomes, not just patient care processes – and, without a disease-modifying therapy available, that might be a challenge,” they wrote.

IDEAS is a funding collaboration of the CMS, the Alzheimer’s Association, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals/Eli Lilly, General Electric Healthcare, Piramal Imaging, and the American College of Radiology. Dr. Rabinovici had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rabinovici GD et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2000.

Amyloid brain imaging with a PET tracer changed clinical management for 60% of patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 63% of those with dementia, according to the IDEAS (Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning) study published in JAMA .

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Diagnoses changed from Alzheimer’s disease to non–Alzheimer’s disease in 25% of 11,409 patients and from non–Alzheimer’s disease to Alzheimer’s disease in 10.5%, reported Gil Rabinovici, MD, and his colleagues. The use of Alzheimer’s disease drugs doubled in amyloid-positive MCI patients, and increased by a third in amyloid-positive dementia patients. Physicians involved in the study said the scans provided key clinical information in 82% of cases with post-scan management changes.

Scans also benefited amyloid-negative patients. Before the scan, 71% of these carried an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis; afterward, just 10% did, opening the way for an accurate diagnosis and more effective treatment.

The study was powered to detect a 30% or greater change in the MCI and dementia groups. The 60% change emphasize how useful amyloid PET scans could be in clinical practice, Dr. Rabinovici, the study’s lead author and principal investigator, said in a press statement.

“We are impressed by the magnitude of these results, which make it clear that amyloid PET imaging can have a major impact on how we diagnose and care for patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rabinovici of the University of California, San Francisco.

Alzheimer’s Association leaders were similarly pleased.

“These results present highly credible, large-scale evidence that amyloid PET imaging can be a powerful tool to improve the accuracy of Alzheimer’s diagnosis and lead to better medical management, especially in difficult-to-diagnose cases,” said Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Association and a coauthor of the study. “It is important that amyloid PET imaging be more broadly accessible to those who need it.”

Michele G. Sullivan/MDedge News

Next steps

Ultimately, investigators hope the nationwide-wide, open-label study will prove the clinical value of amyloid PET scanning and convince the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to make the test a fully covered service for those who meet the appropriate use criteria set forth by the Alzheimer’s Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

IDEAS’ second goal – showing that the scans improve health outcomes – is scheduled for 2020. These data are a key component of the CMS decision, but they might be a tough sell, Clifford R. Jack Jr., MD, and Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Jack and Dr. Petersen are affiliated with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“For CMS to cover the cost of amyloid PET, it must be demonstrated that the result of a scan has an effect on patient outcomes, not just patient care processes – and, without a disease-modifying therapy available, that might be a challenge,” they wrote.

IDEAS is a funding collaboration of the CMS, the Alzheimer’s Association, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals/Eli Lilly, General Electric Healthcare, Piramal Imaging, and the American College of Radiology. Dr. Rabinovici had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rabinovici GD et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2000.

The first cases of HIV infection in the United States were reported in 1981. Since that time, more than 700,000 individuals in our country have died of AIDS. Slightly more than 1 million persons in the United States are currently living with HIV infection; approximately 15% of them are unaware of their infection. Men who have sex with men (MSM) and African American and Hispanic/Latino men and women are disproportionately affected by HIV infection.¹ Among men, MSM is the most common method of infection transmission, accounting for 83% of infections. Heterosexual contact accounts for 9.4% of new infections and injection drug use for 4.0%. Among women in the United States, heterosexual contact is the most common mechanism of transmission, accounting for about 87% of cases; injection drug use accounts for about 12%.¹ Perinatal transmission rates are extremely low—less than 1%—when women receive effective treatment during pregnancy and their infants are treated in the neonatal period.^1,2

The prognosis for HIV-infected patients has improved dramatically in recent years with the availability of many new and exceptionally effective highly-active antiretroviral treatment regimens. Nevertheless, the disease is not yet completely curable. Therefore, preventive measures are of great importance in reducing the enormous toll imposed by this condition.²

Evaluating effectiveness of PrEP

At the request of the US Preventive Services Task Force, Chou and colleagues recently conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing the horizontal transmission of HIV infection.¹ The authors’ secondary objectives included assessing the relationship between degree of adherence to the prophylactic regimen and degree of effectiveness and evaluating the accuracy of various screening systems for identifying patients at high risk for acquiring HIV infection.

The authors reviewed prospective, randomized controlled trials (treatment versus no treatment or treatment versus placebo) published through 2018. Pregnant women were excluded from the studies, as were women who became pregnant after enrollment.

Two different prophylactic regimens were used in the reviewed studies: 1) the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg or 245 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg and 2) tenofovir 300 mg alone. Most trials used the combination regimen. With the exception of one trial, the medications were given daily to uninfected patients at high risk of acquiring HIV infection. In one investigation, the administration of prophylaxis was event driven (administered after a specific high-risk exposure).

Key study findings

PrEP decreased HIV transmission in high-risk patients. Chou and colleagues found that high-risk patients included primarily MSM who did not use condoms consistently or who had a high number of sex partners, individuals in an HIV-serodiscordant relationship, and intravenous drug users who shared injection equipment.

In these high-risk patients, PrEP was associated with a significantly decreased risk of HIV transmission. Observations from 11 trials demonstrated a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33–0.66). The absolute risk reduction was -2.0% (95% CI, -2.8% to -1.2%). The duration of follow up ranged from 4 months to 4 years.

Continue to: Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness...

Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness. When adherence was ≥70%, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.19–0.39). When adherence was 40% to 70%, the RR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38–0.70). When adherence was ≤40%, the relative risk was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72–1.20). Adherence was better with daily administration, as opposed to event-driven administration.

Although the combination prophylactic regimen (tenofovir plus emtricitabine) was most frequently used in the clinical trials, tenofovir alone was comparable in effectiveness.

PrEP resulted in more mild adverse effects. Patients who received PrEP were more likely to develop gastrointestinal adverse effects and renal function abnormalities when compared with patients in the control arms of the studies. These adverse effects were virtually always mild and did not necessitate discontinuation of treatment.

No increase in promiscuous sexual behavior with PrEP. Specifically, investigators did not document an increased incidence of new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in treated patients.

PrEP did not increase adverse pregnancy outcomes. In women who became pregnant while on PrEP, and who then discontinued treatment, there was no increase in the frequency of spontaneous abortion, congenital anomalies, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

In addition, PrEP posed a low risk for causing drug resistance in patients who became infected despite prophylaxis. Finally, the authors found that screening instruments for identifying patients at highest risk for acquiring HIV infection had low to modest sensitivity.

My recommendations for practice

Based on the study by Chou and colleagues, and on a recent commentary by Marcus et al, I believe that the following actions are justified^1–3:

• For prophylaxis to be effective, we must identify all infected patients. Therefore, screening of asymptomatic individuals during routine health encounters is essential.
• All patients should have access to easy-to-understand information related to risk factors for HIV infection.
• Every effort should be made to promote safe sex practices, such as use of latex condoms, avoidance of sex during menses and in the presence of ulcerative genital lesions, and avoidance of use of contaminated drug-injection needles.
• All high-risk patients, as defined above, should be offered PrEP.
• To the greatest extent possible, financial barriers to PrEP should be eliminated.
• Patients receiving PrEP should be monitored for evidence of renal dysfunction. Should they become infected despite prophylaxis, they should be evaluated carefully to detect drug-resistant viral strains.
• Although PrEP is definitely effective in reducing the risk of transmission of HIV infection, it does not prevent the transmission of other STIs, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.

In my practice, I administer prophyaxis on a daily basis rather than just before, or after, a high-risk exposure. This approach enhances patient adherence and, hopefully, will lead to maximum effectiveness over time. I also use the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine rather than tenofovir alone because there is more published information regarding the effectiveness of the combination regimen.

The first cases of HIV infection in the United States were reported in 1981. Since that time, more than 700,000 individuals in our country have died of AIDS. Slightly more than 1 million persons in the United States are currently living with HIV infection; approximately 15% of them are unaware of their infection. Men who have sex with men (MSM) and African American and Hispanic/Latino men and women are disproportionately affected by HIV infection.¹ Among men, MSM is the most common method of infection transmission, accounting for 83% of infections. Heterosexual contact accounts for 9.4% of new infections and injection drug use for 4.0%. Among women in the United States, heterosexual contact is the most common mechanism of transmission, accounting for about 87% of cases; injection drug use accounts for about 12%.¹ Perinatal transmission rates are extremely low—less than 1%—when women receive effective treatment during pregnancy and their infants are treated in the neonatal period.^1,2

The prognosis for HIV-infected patients has improved dramatically in recent years with the availability of many new and exceptionally effective highly-active antiretroviral treatment regimens. Nevertheless, the disease is not yet completely curable. Therefore, preventive measures are of great importance in reducing the enormous toll imposed by this condition.²

Evaluating effectiveness of PrEP

At the request of the US Preventive Services Task Force, Chou and colleagues recently conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing the horizontal transmission of HIV infection.¹ The authors’ secondary objectives included assessing the relationship between degree of adherence to the prophylactic regimen and degree of effectiveness and evaluating the accuracy of various screening systems for identifying patients at high risk for acquiring HIV infection.

The authors reviewed prospective, randomized controlled trials (treatment versus no treatment or treatment versus placebo) published through 2018. Pregnant women were excluded from the studies, as were women who became pregnant after enrollment.

Two different prophylactic regimens were used in the reviewed studies: 1) the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg or 245 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg and 2) tenofovir 300 mg alone. Most trials used the combination regimen. With the exception of one trial, the medications were given daily to uninfected patients at high risk of acquiring HIV infection. In one investigation, the administration of prophylaxis was event driven (administered after a specific high-risk exposure).

Key study findings

PrEP decreased HIV transmission in high-risk patients. Chou and colleagues found that high-risk patients included primarily MSM who did not use condoms consistently or who had a high number of sex partners, individuals in an HIV-serodiscordant relationship, and intravenous drug users who shared injection equipment.

In these high-risk patients, PrEP was associated with a significantly decreased risk of HIV transmission. Observations from 11 trials demonstrated a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33–0.66). The absolute risk reduction was -2.0% (95% CI, -2.8% to -1.2%). The duration of follow up ranged from 4 months to 4 years.

Continue to: Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness...

Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness. When adherence was ≥70%, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.19–0.39). When adherence was 40% to 70%, the RR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38–0.70). When adherence was ≤40%, the relative risk was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72–1.20). Adherence was better with daily administration, as opposed to event-driven administration.

Although the combination prophylactic regimen (tenofovir plus emtricitabine) was most frequently used in the clinical trials, tenofovir alone was comparable in effectiveness.

PrEP resulted in more mild adverse effects. Patients who received PrEP were more likely to develop gastrointestinal adverse effects and renal function abnormalities when compared with patients in the control arms of the studies. These adverse effects were virtually always mild and did not necessitate discontinuation of treatment.

No increase in promiscuous sexual behavior with PrEP. Specifically, investigators did not document an increased incidence of new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in treated patients.

PrEP did not increase adverse pregnancy outcomes. In women who became pregnant while on PrEP, and who then discontinued treatment, there was no increase in the frequency of spontaneous abortion, congenital anomalies, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

In addition, PrEP posed a low risk for causing drug resistance in patients who became infected despite prophylaxis. Finally, the authors found that screening instruments for identifying patients at highest risk for acquiring HIV infection had low to modest sensitivity.

My recommendations for practice

Based on the study by Chou and colleagues, and on a recent commentary by Marcus et al, I believe that the following actions are justified^1–3:

• For prophylaxis to be effective, we must identify all infected patients. Therefore, screening of asymptomatic individuals during routine health encounters is essential.
• All patients should have access to easy-to-understand information related to risk factors for HIV infection.
• Every effort should be made to promote safe sex practices, such as use of latex condoms, avoidance of sex during menses and in the presence of ulcerative genital lesions, and avoidance of use of contaminated drug-injection needles.
• All high-risk patients, as defined above, should be offered PrEP.
• To the greatest extent possible, financial barriers to PrEP should be eliminated.
• Patients receiving PrEP should be monitored for evidence of renal dysfunction. Should they become infected despite prophylaxis, they should be evaluated carefully to detect drug-resistant viral strains.
• Although PrEP is definitely effective in reducing the risk of transmission of HIV infection, it does not prevent the transmission of other STIs, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.

In my practice, I administer prophyaxis on a daily basis rather than just before, or after, a high-risk exposure. This approach enhances patient adherence and, hopefully, will lead to maximum effectiveness over time. I also use the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine rather than tenofovir alone because there is more published information regarding the effectiveness of the combination regimen.

The first cases of HIV infection in the United States were reported in 1981. Since that time, more than 700,000 individuals in our country have died of AIDS. Slightly more than 1 million persons in the United States are currently living with HIV infection; approximately 15% of them are unaware of their infection. Men who have sex with men (MSM) and African American and Hispanic/Latino men and women are disproportionately affected by HIV infection.¹ Among men, MSM is the most common method of infection transmission, accounting for 83% of infections. Heterosexual contact accounts for 9.4% of new infections and injection drug use for 4.0%. Among women in the United States, heterosexual contact is the most common mechanism of transmission, accounting for about 87% of cases; injection drug use accounts for about 12%.¹ Perinatal transmission rates are extremely low—less than 1%—when women receive effective treatment during pregnancy and their infants are treated in the neonatal period.^1,2

The prognosis for HIV-infected patients has improved dramatically in recent years with the availability of many new and exceptionally effective highly-active antiretroviral treatment regimens. Nevertheless, the disease is not yet completely curable. Therefore, preventive measures are of great importance in reducing the enormous toll imposed by this condition.²

Evaluating effectiveness of PrEP

At the request of the US Preventive Services Task Force, Chou and colleagues recently conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing the horizontal transmission of HIV infection.¹ The authors’ secondary objectives included assessing the relationship between degree of adherence to the prophylactic regimen and degree of effectiveness and evaluating the accuracy of various screening systems for identifying patients at high risk for acquiring HIV infection.

The authors reviewed prospective, randomized controlled trials (treatment versus no treatment or treatment versus placebo) published through 2018. Pregnant women were excluded from the studies, as were women who became pregnant after enrollment.

Two different prophylactic regimens were used in the reviewed studies: 1) the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg or 245 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg and 2) tenofovir 300 mg alone. Most trials used the combination regimen. With the exception of one trial, the medications were given daily to uninfected patients at high risk of acquiring HIV infection. In one investigation, the administration of prophylaxis was event driven (administered after a specific high-risk exposure).

Key study findings

PrEP decreased HIV transmission in high-risk patients. Chou and colleagues found that high-risk patients included primarily MSM who did not use condoms consistently or who had a high number of sex partners, individuals in an HIV-serodiscordant relationship, and intravenous drug users who shared injection equipment.

In these high-risk patients, PrEP was associated with a significantly decreased risk of HIV transmission. Observations from 11 trials demonstrated a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33–0.66). The absolute risk reduction was -2.0% (95% CI, -2.8% to -1.2%). The duration of follow up ranged from 4 months to 4 years.

Continue to: Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness...

Better medication adherence = greater prophylaxis effectiveness. When adherence was ≥70%, the RR was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.19–0.39). When adherence was 40% to 70%, the RR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.38–0.70). When adherence was ≤40%, the relative risk was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72–1.20). Adherence was better with daily administration, as opposed to event-driven administration.

Although the combination prophylactic regimen (tenofovir plus emtricitabine) was most frequently used in the clinical trials, tenofovir alone was comparable in effectiveness.

PrEP resulted in more mild adverse effects. Patients who received PrEP were more likely to develop gastrointestinal adverse effects and renal function abnormalities when compared with patients in the control arms of the studies. These adverse effects were virtually always mild and did not necessitate discontinuation of treatment.

No increase in promiscuous sexual behavior with PrEP. Specifically, investigators did not document an increased incidence of new sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in treated patients.

PrEP did not increase adverse pregnancy outcomes. In women who became pregnant while on PrEP, and who then discontinued treatment, there was no increase in the frequency of spontaneous abortion, congenital anomalies, or other adverse pregnancy outcomes.

In addition, PrEP posed a low risk for causing drug resistance in patients who became infected despite prophylaxis. Finally, the authors found that screening instruments for identifying patients at highest risk for acquiring HIV infection had low to modest sensitivity.

My recommendations for practice

Based on the study by Chou and colleagues, and on a recent commentary by Marcus et al, I believe that the following actions are justified^1–3:

• For prophylaxis to be effective, we must identify all infected patients. Therefore, screening of asymptomatic individuals during routine health encounters is essential.
• All patients should have access to easy-to-understand information related to risk factors for HIV infection.
• Every effort should be made to promote safe sex practices, such as use of latex condoms, avoidance of sex during menses and in the presence of ulcerative genital lesions, and avoidance of use of contaminated drug-injection needles.
• All high-risk patients, as defined above, should be offered PrEP.
• To the greatest extent possible, financial barriers to PrEP should be eliminated.
• Patients receiving PrEP should be monitored for evidence of renal dysfunction. Should they become infected despite prophylaxis, they should be evaluated carefully to detect drug-resistant viral strains.
• Although PrEP is definitely effective in reducing the risk of transmission of HIV infection, it does not prevent the transmission of other STIs, such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia.

In my practice, I administer prophyaxis on a daily basis rather than just before, or after, a high-risk exposure. This approach enhances patient adherence and, hopefully, will lead to maximum effectiveness over time. I also use the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine rather than tenofovir alone because there is more published information regarding the effectiveness of the combination regimen.

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

Importance

The prevention and treatment of traveler’s diarrhea (TD) is a common reason that patients consult their physician prior to foreign travel. TD can result in lost time and opportunity, as well as overseas medical encounters and hospitalization. This guideline by the International Society of Travel Medicine provides clinically relevant, useful, and practical guidance to providers regarding the use of antibiotic and nonantibiotic therapies for the prevention and treatment of TD.

Prophylaxis

The panel recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis should not be used routinely in travelers, but it should be considered for travelers who are at high risk of health-related complications of TD (both strong recommendations, low/very low level of evidence [LOE]). High-risk individuals include those with a history of clinically significant long-term morbidity following an enteric infection or serious chronic illnesses that predisposes them for TD-related complications. Bismuth subsalicylate (BSS) may be considered for any traveler to prevent TD (3, strong recommendation, high LOE). Studies show that a lower dose of 1.05 g/day is preventive, although it is unclear whether it is as effective as higher doses of 2.1 g/day or 4.2 g/day. When prophylaxis is indicated, travelers should be prescribed rifaximin (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) based on susceptibility of most enteric pathogens and the drug’s extremely favorable safety profile. Fluoroquinolones (FQ) are no longer recommended for prophylaxis (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE) because of neurologic and musculoskeletal side effects that may outweigh benefits, as well as emerging resistance of enteric pathogens (70%-80% in Campylobacter spp. from Nepal and Thailand and 65% in Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli [ETEC] and Enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC] in India).

Treatment

The following treatment recommendations are based on the classification of TD using functional effects of severity; therefore, the panel made new definitions for TD severity. This is a change from previous definitions that utilized a traditional frequency-based algorithm in order to tailor therapy for the individual. Individuals can be prescribed antibiotics and antimotility agents to take with them during travel, along with advice regarding how to judge when to use each agent.

Mild: diarrhea that is tolerable, is not distressing, and does not interfere with planned activities.

Encourage supportive measures such as rehydration and nonantibiotic, antimotility drugs, such as loperamide or BSS (both strong recommendations, moderate LOE).

Moderate: diarrhea that is distressing or interferes with planned activities.

Antibiotics may be used (weak recommendation, moderate LOE) as early and effective treatment may mitigate the well-described chronic health consequences including irritable bowel syndrome. Three options exist. FQs may be used outside of Southeast and South Asia (strong recommendation, moderate LOE), but their potential for adverse effects and musculoskeletal consequences must be considered. Azithromycin may be used (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies show no significant differences in efficacy between it and FQs, limited resistance to common TD pathogens (although concerns exist in Nepal), and good side effect profile. Another choice is rifaximin (weak recommendation, moderate LOE), although one should exercise caution for empirical therapy in regions in which being at high risk of invasive pathogens is anticipated.

Loperamide may be used as adjunctive therapy for moderate to severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) to add symptomatic relief with curative treatment or as monotherapy in moderate TD (strong recommendation, high LOE). This is specifically true in children aged 2-11 years, in whom loperamide is beneficial without causing severe side effects.

Severe: diarrhea that is incapacitating or completely prevents planned activities; all dysentery (passage of grossly bloody stools).

Antibiotics should be used (strong recommendation, high LOE). Azithromycin is the preferred choice and is first-line for dysentery or febrile diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate LOE) because of the likelihood of FQ-resistant bacteria being the cause of dysentery. FQs and rifaximin are also choices that can be used to treat severe, nondysenteric TD (both weak recommendations, moderate LOE).

Furthermore, single-dose antibiotics may be used to treat moderate or severe TD (strong recommendation, high LOE) because studies have shown equivalent efficacy for treatment of watery noninvasive diarrhea among FQs (3 days, single dose), azithromycin (3 days, single dose), and rifaximin (3 days, three times daily).

Persistent: diarrhea lasting longer than 2 weeks.

Functional bowel disease (FBD) may occur after bouts of TD and may meet Rome III or IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. Thus, in a traveler without pretravel GI disease, in whom the evaluation for microbial etiologies and underlying GI disease is negative, postinfectious FBD must be considered.

Follow-up and diagnostic testing

The panel recommends microbiological testing in returning travelers with severe or persistent symptoms, bloody/mucousy diarrhea, or in those who fail empiric therapy (strong recommendation, low/very low LOE). Molecular testing, aimed at a broad range of clinically relevant pathogens, is preferred when rapid results are clinically important or nonmolecular tests have failed to establish a diagnosis. Furthermore, molecular testing may, in some cases, detect colonization rather than infection.
 

The bottom line

The expert panel made 20 graded recommendations to help guide the provider with nonantibiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of TD. The main take-home points include:

• Prophylaxis should be considered only in high-risk groups; rifaximin is the first choice, and BSS is a second option.
• All travelers should be provided with loperamide and an antibiotic for self-treatment if needed.
• Mild diarrhea should be treated with increased fluid intake and loperamide or BSS.
• Moderate to severe diarrhea should be treated with single-dose antimicrobial therapy of FQ or azithromycin or with rifaximin dosing three times a day.
• Instead of antibiotics, loperamide may be considered as monotherapy for moderate diarrhea; loperamide can be used with antibiotics for both moderate and severe TD.

Dr. Shrestha is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington (Pa.) - Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington - Jefferson Health.

Reference:

J Travel Med. 2017 Apr 1;24(suppl_1):S57-74.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

Busulfan plus melphalan could replace melphalan alone as the standard conditioning regimen for multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplant, according to researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/KGH/Creative Commons License

In a phase 3 trial, patients who received conditioning with busulfan plus melphalan had significantly longer median progression-free survival compared with patients who received melphalan alone – 64.7 months versus 43.5 months (P = .022).

However, there was no overall survival advantage with busulfan plus melphalan, and adverse events were more common with this regimen, reported Qaiser Bashir, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and his colleagues. The report is in The Lancet Haematology.

To their knowledge, the researchers wrote, this was the first randomized, phase 3 trial showing a significant progression-free survival benefit for busulfan plus melphalan versus the standard of care of melphalan 200 mg/m² pretransplantation conditioning. “These data suggest that busulfan plus melphalan conditioning can serve as a useful platform for further improvement of transplant outcomes in patients with myeloma.”

The current trial (NCT01413178) enrolled 205 multiple myeloma patients who were eligible for transplant. They were randomized to conditioning with melphalan alone or busulfan plus melphalan.

In all, 98 patients received melphalan alone, given at 200 mg/m² on day –2. The 104 patients who received busulfan plus melphalan started with a test dose of busulfan at 32 mg/m², which was followed by pharmacokinetically adjusted doses on days –7, –6, –5, and –4 to achieve a target daily area under the curve of 5,000 mmol/minute. These patients received melphalan at 70 mg/m² per day on days –2 and –1.

The median age at transplant was 57.9 years (range, 31.7-70.9 years) in the busulfan group and 57.6 years (range, 34.3-70.6 years) in the melphalan-alone group.

The most common induction regimen used was bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, which was given to 60% of the busulfan group and 57% of the melphalan-alone group.

Most patients responded to induction – 96% of patients in the busulfan group and 94% of those in the melphalan-alone group.

There was no treatment-related mortality within 100 days of transplant.

At 90 days after transplant, the response rate was 98% in the busulfan group and 97% in the melphalan-alone group. The rate of complete remission/stringent complete remission was 27% and 34%, respectively.

Most patients received posttransplant maintenance. The most common maintenance regimen consisted of lenalidomide monotherapy, which was given to 57% of the busulfan group and 58% of the melphalan-alone group.

Patients continued maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median duration of maintenance was 16.0 months in the busulfan group and 10.1 months in the melphalan-alone group.

The median follow-up was 22.6 months in the busulfan group and 20.2 months in the melphalan-alone group.

Progression-free survival was superior in the busulfan group. Median progression-free survival was 64.7 months in the busulfan group and 43.5 months in the melphalan-alone group (hazard ratio = 0.53; P = .022). The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 72% and 50%, respectively.

The median overall survival was not reached in either group. The 3-year overall survival rate was 91% in the busulfan group and 89% in the melphalan-alone group.

There were 10 deaths in the busulfan group, 7 due to progression and 3 due to infection. All 7 deaths in the melphalan-alone group were due to progression.

Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity was more common in the busulfan group, occurring in 84% of that group and 33% of the melphalan-alone group (P less than .0001).

Grade 2-3 mucositis occurred in 74% of the busulfan group and 14% of the melphalan-alone group. There were no cases of grade 4 mucositis.

One patient in the busulfan group had grade 4 cardiac toxicity, an acute myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation. However, the patient recovered and was in remission at last follow-up.

Two patients in the busulfan group developed second primary malignancies. One patient developed squamous cell skin cancer and rectal adenocarcinoma, and the other developed melanoma and basal cell skin carcinoma.

Three patients in the melphalan-alone group developed second primary malignancies. Two patients had squamous cell skin cancers and one had myelodysplastic syndrome.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues noted that this study has limitations, including insufficient data to assess minimal residual disease and its impact on survival. It is a single-center study and induction and maintenance therapies were not prespecified.

“These results should be verified in a cooperative group or a multicenter, randomized study to assess the generalizability of our findings,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Bashir and his colleagues reported having no competing financial interests. The trial was sponsored by MD Anderson Cancer Center in collaboration with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization. The work was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bashir Q et al. Lancet Haematol. 2019 Mar 22. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30023-7.

Perinatal depression is an episode of major or minor depression that occurs during pregnancy or in the 12 months after birth; it affects about 10% of new mothers.¹ Perinatal depression adversely impacts mothers, children, and their families. Pregnant women with depression are at increased risk for preterm birth and low birth weight.² Infants of mothers with postpartum depression have reduced bonding, lower rates of breastfeeding, delayed cognitive and social development, and an increased risk of future mental health issues.³ Timely treatment of perinatal depression can improve health outcomes for the woman, her children, and their family.

Clinicians follow current screening recommendations

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends that ObGynsscreen all pregnant women for depression and anxiety symptoms at least once during the perinatal period.¹ Many practices use the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during pregnancy and postpartum. Women who screen positive are referred to mental health clinicians or have treatment initiated by their primary obstetrician.

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. In a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 98% of pregnant women were screened for perinatal depression, and a diagnosis of depression was made in 12%.⁴ Of note, only 47% of women who screened positive for depression initiated treatment, although 82% of women with the most severe symptoms initiated treatment. These data demonstrate that ObGyns consistently screen pregnant women for depression but, due to patient and system issues, treatment of all screen-positive women remains a yet unattained goal.^5,6

New USPSTF guideline: Identify women at risk for perinatal depression and refer for counseling

In 2016 the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that pregnant and postpartum women be screened for depression with adequate systems in place to ensure diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up.⁷ The 2016 USPSTF recommendation was consistent with prior guidelines from both the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010⁸ and ACOG in 2015.⁹

Now, the USPSTF is making a bold new recommendation, jumping ahead of professional societies: screen pregnant women to identify those at risk for perinatal depression and refer them for counseling (B recommendation; net benefit is moderate).^10,11 The USPSTF recommendation is based on growing literature that shows counseling women at risk for perinatal depression reduces the risk of having an episode of major depression by 40%.¹¹ Both interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy have been reported to be effective for preventing perinatal depression.^12,13

As an example of the relevant literature, in one trial performed in Rhode Island, women who were 20 to 35 weeks pregnant with a high score (≥27) on the Cooper Survey Questionnaire and on public assistance were randomized to counseling or usual care. The counseling intervention involved 4 small group (2 to 5 women) sessions of 90 minutes and one individual session of 50 minutes.¹⁴ The treatment focused on managing the transition to motherhood, developing a support system, improving communication skills to manage conflict, goal setting, and identifying psychosocial supports for new mothers. At 6 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 31% of the control women and 16% of the women who had experienced the intervention (P = .041). At 12 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 40% of control women and 26% of women in the intervention group (P = .052).

Of note, most cases of postpartum depression were diagnosed more than 3 months after birth, a time when new mothers generally no longer are receiving regular postpartum care by an obstetrician. The timing of the diagnosis of perinatal depression indicates that an effective handoff between the obstetrician and primary care and/or mental health clinicians is of great importance. The investigators concluded that pregnant women at very high risk for perinatal depression who receive interpersonal therapy have a lower rate of a postpartum depressive episode than women receiving usual care.¹⁴

Pregnancy, delivery, and the first year following birth are stressful for many women and their families. Women who are young, poor, and with minimal social supports are at especially high risk for developing perinatal depression. However, it will be challenging for obstetric practices to rapidly implement the new USPSTF recommendations because there is no professional consensus on how to screen women to identify those at high risk for perinatal depression, and mental health resources to care for the screen-positive women are not sufficient.

Continue to: Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline...

Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline

Challenge 1: There is no widely accepted approach for identifying women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF acknowledges “there is no accurate screening tool for identifying who is at risk of perinatal depression and who might benefit from preventive interventions.”¹⁰

Obstetricians have had great success in screening for perinatal depression because validated screening tools are available. Professional societies need to reach a consensus on recommending a specific screening tool for perinatal depression risk that can be used in all obstetric practices.

Challenge 2: The USPSTF guideline identifies many risk factors for perinatal depression. The USPSTF concluded that pregnant women with one (or more) of the following risk factors are at high risk for perinatal depression and recommended that they be offered a counseling intervention:

• personal history of depression
• current depressive symptoms that do not reach a diagnostic threshold
• low income
• all adolescents
• all single mothers
• recent exposure to intimate partner violence
• elevated anxiety symptoms
• a history of significant negative life events.

For many obstetricians, most of their pregnant patients meet the USPSTF criteria for being at high risk for perinatal depression and, per the guideline, these women should have a counseling intervention.

Challenge 3: The counseling intervention recommended by the USPSTF may not be available to all women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF literature review, including a meta-analysis of 49 randomized clinical trials, concluded that for women at risk for perinatal depression, a counseling intervention reduces the risk of depression. In the published literature, many counseling interventions to reduce the risk of perinatal depression involve 6 to 12 hours of contact time over 4 to 8 episodes.

For many health systems, the resources available to provide mental health services are very limited. If most pregnant women need a counseling intervention, the health system must evolve to meet this need. In addition, risk factors for perinatal depression are also risk factors for having difficulty in participating in mental health interventions due to limitations, such as lack of transportation, social support, and money.⁴

Fortunately, clinicians from many backgrounds, including psychologists, social workers, nurse practitioners, and public health workers have the experience and/or training to provide the counseling interventions that have been shown to reduce the risk of perinatal depression. Health systems will need to tap all these resources to accommodate the large numbers of pregnant women who will be referred for counseling interventions. Pilot projects using electronic interventions, including telephone counseling, smartphone apps, and internet programs show promise.^15,16 Electronic interventions have the potential to reach many pregnant women without over-taxing limited mental health resources.

A practical approach

Identify women at the greatest risk for perinatal depression and focus counseling interventions on this group. In my opinion, implementation of the USPSTF recommendation will take time. A practical approach would be to implement them in a staged sequence, focusing first on the women at highest risk, later extending the program to women at lesser risk. The two factors that confer the greatest risk of perinatal depression are a personal history of depression and high depression symptoms that do not meet criteria for depression.¹⁷ Many women with depression who take antidepressants discontinue their medications during pregnancy. These women are at very high risk for perinatal depression and deserve extra attention.¹⁸

Continue to: To identify women with a prior personal history of depression...

To identify women with a prior personal history of depression, it may be helpful to ask open-ended questions about a past diagnosis of depression or a mood disorder or use of antidepressant medications. To identify women with the greatest depression symptoms, utilize a lower cut-off for screening positive in the Edinburgh questionnaire. Practices that use an EPDS screen-positive score of 13 or greater could reduce the cut-off to 10 or 11, which would increase the number of women referred for evaluation and treatment.¹⁹

Clinical judgment and screening

Screening for prevalent depression and screening for women at increased risk for perinatal depression is challenging. ACOG highlights two important clinical issues¹:

“Women with current depression or anxiety, a history of perinatal mood disorders, risk factors for perinatal mood disorders or suicidal thoughts warrant particularly close monitoring, evaluation and assessment.”

When screening for perinatal depression, screening test results should be interpreted within the clinical context. “A normal score for a tearful patient with a flat affect does not exclude depression; an elevated score in the context of an acute stressful event may resolve with close follow-up.”

In addition, women who screen-positive for prevalent depression and are subsequently evaluated by a mental health specialist may be identified as having mental health problems such as an anxiety disorder, substance misuse, or borderline personality disorder.²⁰

Policy changes that support pregnant women and mothers could help to reduce the stress of pregnancy, birth, and childrearing, thereby reducing the risk of perinatal depression. The United States stands alone among rich nations in not providing paid parental leave. Paid maternity and parental leave would help many families respond more effectively to the initial stresses of parenthood.²¹ For women and families living in poverty, improved social support, including secure housing, protection from abusive partners, transportation resources, and access to healthy foods likely will reduce both stress and the risk of depression.

The ultimate goal: A healthy pregnancy

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. The new USPSTF recommendation adds the prevention of perinatal depression to the goals of a healthy pregnancy. This recommendation builds upon the foundation of screening for acute illness (depression), pivoting to the public health perspective of disease prevention.

Perinatal depression is an episode of major or minor depression that occurs during pregnancy or in the 12 months after birth; it affects about 10% of new mothers.¹ Perinatal depression adversely impacts mothers, children, and their families. Pregnant women with depression are at increased risk for preterm birth and low birth weight.² Infants of mothers with postpartum depression have reduced bonding, lower rates of breastfeeding, delayed cognitive and social development, and an increased risk of future mental health issues.³ Timely treatment of perinatal depression can improve health outcomes for the woman, her children, and their family.

Clinicians follow current screening recommendations

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends that ObGynsscreen all pregnant women for depression and anxiety symptoms at least once during the perinatal period.¹ Many practices use the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during pregnancy and postpartum. Women who screen positive are referred to mental health clinicians or have treatment initiated by their primary obstetrician.

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. In a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 98% of pregnant women were screened for perinatal depression, and a diagnosis of depression was made in 12%.⁴ Of note, only 47% of women who screened positive for depression initiated treatment, although 82% of women with the most severe symptoms initiated treatment. These data demonstrate that ObGyns consistently screen pregnant women for depression but, due to patient and system issues, treatment of all screen-positive women remains a yet unattained goal.^5,6

New USPSTF guideline: Identify women at risk for perinatal depression and refer for counseling

In 2016 the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that pregnant and postpartum women be screened for depression with adequate systems in place to ensure diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up.⁷ The 2016 USPSTF recommendation was consistent with prior guidelines from both the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010⁸ and ACOG in 2015.⁹

Now, the USPSTF is making a bold new recommendation, jumping ahead of professional societies: screen pregnant women to identify those at risk for perinatal depression and refer them for counseling (B recommendation; net benefit is moderate).^10,11 The USPSTF recommendation is based on growing literature that shows counseling women at risk for perinatal depression reduces the risk of having an episode of major depression by 40%.¹¹ Both interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy have been reported to be effective for preventing perinatal depression.^12,13

As an example of the relevant literature, in one trial performed in Rhode Island, women who were 20 to 35 weeks pregnant with a high score (≥27) on the Cooper Survey Questionnaire and on public assistance were randomized to counseling or usual care. The counseling intervention involved 4 small group (2 to 5 women) sessions of 90 minutes and one individual session of 50 minutes.¹⁴ The treatment focused on managing the transition to motherhood, developing a support system, improving communication skills to manage conflict, goal setting, and identifying psychosocial supports for new mothers. At 6 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 31% of the control women and 16% of the women who had experienced the intervention (P = .041). At 12 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 40% of control women and 26% of women in the intervention group (P = .052).

Of note, most cases of postpartum depression were diagnosed more than 3 months after birth, a time when new mothers generally no longer are receiving regular postpartum care by an obstetrician. The timing of the diagnosis of perinatal depression indicates that an effective handoff between the obstetrician and primary care and/or mental health clinicians is of great importance. The investigators concluded that pregnant women at very high risk for perinatal depression who receive interpersonal therapy have a lower rate of a postpartum depressive episode than women receiving usual care.¹⁴

Pregnancy, delivery, and the first year following birth are stressful for many women and their families. Women who are young, poor, and with minimal social supports are at especially high risk for developing perinatal depression. However, it will be challenging for obstetric practices to rapidly implement the new USPSTF recommendations because there is no professional consensus on how to screen women to identify those at high risk for perinatal depression, and mental health resources to care for the screen-positive women are not sufficient.

Continue to: Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline...

Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline

Challenge 1: There is no widely accepted approach for identifying women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF acknowledges “there is no accurate screening tool for identifying who is at risk of perinatal depression and who might benefit from preventive interventions.”¹⁰

Obstetricians have had great success in screening for perinatal depression because validated screening tools are available. Professional societies need to reach a consensus on recommending a specific screening tool for perinatal depression risk that can be used in all obstetric practices.

Challenge 2: The USPSTF guideline identifies many risk factors for perinatal depression. The USPSTF concluded that pregnant women with one (or more) of the following risk factors are at high risk for perinatal depression and recommended that they be offered a counseling intervention:

• personal history of depression
• current depressive symptoms that do not reach a diagnostic threshold
• low income
• all adolescents
• all single mothers
• recent exposure to intimate partner violence
• elevated anxiety symptoms
• a history of significant negative life events.

For many obstetricians, most of their pregnant patients meet the USPSTF criteria for being at high risk for perinatal depression and, per the guideline, these women should have a counseling intervention.

Challenge 3: The counseling intervention recommended by the USPSTF may not be available to all women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF literature review, including a meta-analysis of 49 randomized clinical trials, concluded that for women at risk for perinatal depression, a counseling intervention reduces the risk of depression. In the published literature, many counseling interventions to reduce the risk of perinatal depression involve 6 to 12 hours of contact time over 4 to 8 episodes.

For many health systems, the resources available to provide mental health services are very limited. If most pregnant women need a counseling intervention, the health system must evolve to meet this need. In addition, risk factors for perinatal depression are also risk factors for having difficulty in participating in mental health interventions due to limitations, such as lack of transportation, social support, and money.⁴

Fortunately, clinicians from many backgrounds, including psychologists, social workers, nurse practitioners, and public health workers have the experience and/or training to provide the counseling interventions that have been shown to reduce the risk of perinatal depression. Health systems will need to tap all these resources to accommodate the large numbers of pregnant women who will be referred for counseling interventions. Pilot projects using electronic interventions, including telephone counseling, smartphone apps, and internet programs show promise.^15,16 Electronic interventions have the potential to reach many pregnant women without over-taxing limited mental health resources.

A practical approach

Identify women at the greatest risk for perinatal depression and focus counseling interventions on this group. In my opinion, implementation of the USPSTF recommendation will take time. A practical approach would be to implement them in a staged sequence, focusing first on the women at highest risk, later extending the program to women at lesser risk. The two factors that confer the greatest risk of perinatal depression are a personal history of depression and high depression symptoms that do not meet criteria for depression.¹⁷ Many women with depression who take antidepressants discontinue their medications during pregnancy. These women are at very high risk for perinatal depression and deserve extra attention.¹⁸

Continue to: To identify women with a prior personal history of depression...

To identify women with a prior personal history of depression, it may be helpful to ask open-ended questions about a past diagnosis of depression or a mood disorder or use of antidepressant medications. To identify women with the greatest depression symptoms, utilize a lower cut-off for screening positive in the Edinburgh questionnaire. Practices that use an EPDS screen-positive score of 13 or greater could reduce the cut-off to 10 or 11, which would increase the number of women referred for evaluation and treatment.¹⁹

Clinical judgment and screening

Screening for prevalent depression and screening for women at increased risk for perinatal depression is challenging. ACOG highlights two important clinical issues¹:

“Women with current depression or anxiety, a history of perinatal mood disorders, risk factors for perinatal mood disorders or suicidal thoughts warrant particularly close monitoring, evaluation and assessment.”

When screening for perinatal depression, screening test results should be interpreted within the clinical context. “A normal score for a tearful patient with a flat affect does not exclude depression; an elevated score in the context of an acute stressful event may resolve with close follow-up.”

In addition, women who screen-positive for prevalent depression and are subsequently evaluated by a mental health specialist may be identified as having mental health problems such as an anxiety disorder, substance misuse, or borderline personality disorder.²⁰

Policy changes that support pregnant women and mothers could help to reduce the stress of pregnancy, birth, and childrearing, thereby reducing the risk of perinatal depression. The United States stands alone among rich nations in not providing paid parental leave. Paid maternity and parental leave would help many families respond more effectively to the initial stresses of parenthood.²¹ For women and families living in poverty, improved social support, including secure housing, protection from abusive partners, transportation resources, and access to healthy foods likely will reduce both stress and the risk of depression.

The ultimate goal: A healthy pregnancy

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. The new USPSTF recommendation adds the prevention of perinatal depression to the goals of a healthy pregnancy. This recommendation builds upon the foundation of screening for acute illness (depression), pivoting to the public health perspective of disease prevention.

Perinatal depression is an episode of major or minor depression that occurs during pregnancy or in the 12 months after birth; it affects about 10% of new mothers.¹ Perinatal depression adversely impacts mothers, children, and their families. Pregnant women with depression are at increased risk for preterm birth and low birth weight.² Infants of mothers with postpartum depression have reduced bonding, lower rates of breastfeeding, delayed cognitive and social development, and an increased risk of future mental health issues.³ Timely treatment of perinatal depression can improve health outcomes for the woman, her children, and their family.

Clinicians follow current screening recommendations

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends that ObGynsscreen all pregnant women for depression and anxiety symptoms at least once during the perinatal period.¹ Many practices use the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during pregnancy and postpartum. Women who screen positive are referred to mental health clinicians or have treatment initiated by their primary obstetrician.

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. In a recent study from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 98% of pregnant women were screened for perinatal depression, and a diagnosis of depression was made in 12%.⁴ Of note, only 47% of women who screened positive for depression initiated treatment, although 82% of women with the most severe symptoms initiated treatment. These data demonstrate that ObGyns consistently screen pregnant women for depression but, due to patient and system issues, treatment of all screen-positive women remains a yet unattained goal.^5,6

New USPSTF guideline: Identify women at risk for perinatal depression and refer for counseling

In 2016 the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that pregnant and postpartum women be screened for depression with adequate systems in place to ensure diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up.⁷ The 2016 USPSTF recommendation was consistent with prior guidelines from both the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010⁸ and ACOG in 2015.⁹

Now, the USPSTF is making a bold new recommendation, jumping ahead of professional societies: screen pregnant women to identify those at risk for perinatal depression and refer them for counseling (B recommendation; net benefit is moderate).^10,11 The USPSTF recommendation is based on growing literature that shows counseling women at risk for perinatal depression reduces the risk of having an episode of major depression by 40%.¹¹ Both interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy have been reported to be effective for preventing perinatal depression.^12,13

As an example of the relevant literature, in one trial performed in Rhode Island, women who were 20 to 35 weeks pregnant with a high score (≥27) on the Cooper Survey Questionnaire and on public assistance were randomized to counseling or usual care. The counseling intervention involved 4 small group (2 to 5 women) sessions of 90 minutes and one individual session of 50 minutes.¹⁴ The treatment focused on managing the transition to motherhood, developing a support system, improving communication skills to manage conflict, goal setting, and identifying psychosocial supports for new mothers. At 6 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 31% of the control women and 16% of the women who had experienced the intervention (P = .041). At 12 months after birth, a depressive episode had occurred in 40% of control women and 26% of women in the intervention group (P = .052).

Of note, most cases of postpartum depression were diagnosed more than 3 months after birth, a time when new mothers generally no longer are receiving regular postpartum care by an obstetrician. The timing of the diagnosis of perinatal depression indicates that an effective handoff between the obstetrician and primary care and/or mental health clinicians is of great importance. The investigators concluded that pregnant women at very high risk for perinatal depression who receive interpersonal therapy have a lower rate of a postpartum depressive episode than women receiving usual care.¹⁴

Pregnancy, delivery, and the first year following birth are stressful for many women and their families. Women who are young, poor, and with minimal social supports are at especially high risk for developing perinatal depression. However, it will be challenging for obstetric practices to rapidly implement the new USPSTF recommendations because there is no professional consensus on how to screen women to identify those at high risk for perinatal depression, and mental health resources to care for the screen-positive women are not sufficient.

Continue to: Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline...

Challenges to implementing new USPSTF guideline

Challenge 1: There is no widely accepted approach for identifying women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF acknowledges “there is no accurate screening tool for identifying who is at risk of perinatal depression and who might benefit from preventive interventions.”¹⁰

Obstetricians have had great success in screening for perinatal depression because validated screening tools are available. Professional societies need to reach a consensus on recommending a specific screening tool for perinatal depression risk that can be used in all obstetric practices.

Challenge 2: The USPSTF guideline identifies many risk factors for perinatal depression. The USPSTF concluded that pregnant women with one (or more) of the following risk factors are at high risk for perinatal depression and recommended that they be offered a counseling intervention:

• personal history of depression
• current depressive symptoms that do not reach a diagnostic threshold
• low income
• all adolescents
• all single mothers
• recent exposure to intimate partner violence
• elevated anxiety symptoms
• a history of significant negative life events.

For many obstetricians, most of their pregnant patients meet the USPSTF criteria for being at high risk for perinatal depression and, per the guideline, these women should have a counseling intervention.

Challenge 3: The counseling intervention recommended by the USPSTF may not be available to all women at risk for perinatal depression. The USPSTF literature review, including a meta-analysis of 49 randomized clinical trials, concluded that for women at risk for perinatal depression, a counseling intervention reduces the risk of depression. In the published literature, many counseling interventions to reduce the risk of perinatal depression involve 6 to 12 hours of contact time over 4 to 8 episodes.

For many health systems, the resources available to provide mental health services are very limited. If most pregnant women need a counseling intervention, the health system must evolve to meet this need. In addition, risk factors for perinatal depression are also risk factors for having difficulty in participating in mental health interventions due to limitations, such as lack of transportation, social support, and money.⁴

Fortunately, clinicians from many backgrounds, including psychologists, social workers, nurse practitioners, and public health workers have the experience and/or training to provide the counseling interventions that have been shown to reduce the risk of perinatal depression. Health systems will need to tap all these resources to accommodate the large numbers of pregnant women who will be referred for counseling interventions. Pilot projects using electronic interventions, including telephone counseling, smartphone apps, and internet programs show promise.^15,16 Electronic interventions have the potential to reach many pregnant women without over-taxing limited mental health resources.

A practical approach

Identify women at the greatest risk for perinatal depression and focus counseling interventions on this group. In my opinion, implementation of the USPSTF recommendation will take time. A practical approach would be to implement them in a staged sequence, focusing first on the women at highest risk, later extending the program to women at lesser risk. The two factors that confer the greatest risk of perinatal depression are a personal history of depression and high depression symptoms that do not meet criteria for depression.¹⁷ Many women with depression who take antidepressants discontinue their medications during pregnancy. These women are at very high risk for perinatal depression and deserve extra attention.¹⁸

Continue to: To identify women with a prior personal history of depression...

To identify women with a prior personal history of depression, it may be helpful to ask open-ended questions about a past diagnosis of depression or a mood disorder or use of antidepressant medications. To identify women with the greatest depression symptoms, utilize a lower cut-off for screening positive in the Edinburgh questionnaire. Practices that use an EPDS screen-positive score of 13 or greater could reduce the cut-off to 10 or 11, which would increase the number of women referred for evaluation and treatment.¹⁹

Clinical judgment and screening

Screening for prevalent depression and screening for women at increased risk for perinatal depression is challenging. ACOG highlights two important clinical issues¹:

“Women with current depression or anxiety, a history of perinatal mood disorders, risk factors for perinatal mood disorders or suicidal thoughts warrant particularly close monitoring, evaluation and assessment.”

When screening for perinatal depression, screening test results should be interpreted within the clinical context. “A normal score for a tearful patient with a flat affect does not exclude depression; an elevated score in the context of an acute stressful event may resolve with close follow-up.”

In addition, women who screen-positive for prevalent depression and are subsequently evaluated by a mental health specialist may be identified as having mental health problems such as an anxiety disorder, substance misuse, or borderline personality disorder.²⁰

Policy changes that support pregnant women and mothers could help to reduce the stress of pregnancy, birth, and childrearing, thereby reducing the risk of perinatal depression. The United States stands alone among rich nations in not providing paid parental leave. Paid maternity and parental leave would help many families respond more effectively to the initial stresses of parenthood.²¹ For women and families living in poverty, improved social support, including secure housing, protection from abusive partners, transportation resources, and access to healthy foods likely will reduce both stress and the risk of depression.

The ultimate goal: A healthy pregnancy

Clinicians have been phenomenally successful in screening for perinatal depression. The new USPSTF recommendation adds the prevention of perinatal depression to the goals of a healthy pregnancy. This recommendation builds upon the foundation of screening for acute illness (depression), pivoting to the public health perspective of disease prevention.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Following pelvic floor surgery, patients regard failure to achieve functional goals as severe adverse events, according to results of a new study. Such negative reactions occur more frequently as time passes and may be related to incongruent patient expectations, which may in turn affect physician-patient communication.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

“We must bridge the gap between expectations and the occurrence of an unanticipated problem. What this study highlights is a need for counseling beyond the traditional complications, and more discussion about the possibility of failure in terms of the things that the patients identify as important,” Brenna McGuire, MD, a resident at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said while presenting the results at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The work highlights the need to look at outcomes in a different way, said Vivian Sung, MD, who was not involved in the research and was a discussant following the presentation. “Most of our studies are designed with methodology to emphasize efficacy and often secondary outcomes to capture complications and adverse events. But there is a gray area. It’s something that’s evolving, and we’re getting better at,” Dr. Sung, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Brown University and a urogynecologist at Women and Infants Hospital, both in Providence, R.I., said in an interview.

The success of a procedure is typically evaluated by determining incontinence during an office visit, but the problem may not be occurring at that particular moment, and the patient may not be happy with the overall outcome. “Sometimes you can fix one problem, and the other problems become more prominent, or new problems develop. [Incontinence alone is] not a perfect picture or what the patient was envisioning her outcome to be,” Dr. Sung said.

Expectations can potentially be better managed through better patient counseling, but that’s not a simple fix either, she noted. Most surgeons counsel patients on negative outcomes, but adverse events with a 5%-10% probability may fail to make an impression. “Really, the rate is zero or 100%. It’s not that it doesn’t seem like a meaningful complication, it’s just that it doesn’t seem like it will happen to you. And then when it does, it can be very devastating depending on what it is and what your expectation was.”

Dr. McGuire and her associates followed 20 women (mean age, 55 years; 50% non-Hispanic white, 25% Hispanic, 25% Native American) at a single institution in New Mexico who underwent surgeries for pelvic floor disorders. They interviewed each participant before and after surgery, at 4-6 weeks, and 6 months after surgery, asking them to rank adverse events at each time point.

Before surgery, patients expressed concerns about postoperative pain, injury, and catheter issues. At 6-8 weeks, the chief concerns were daily activities, sexual activity, and symptom reduction. At 6 months, incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and mental health issues predominated. In other words, concerns migrated from traditional complications to functional outcomes over time.

At the 6-8 week interview, a representative quote was: “It’s the fact that it didn’t work. It’s the fact that I’m still suffering from all the same symptoms.” At 6 months, another quote was: “I hate this so much. It really does impact my life negatively. It affects my work, it affects everything, and makes me very angry.”

Traditional adverse events such as pain and infection dropped in frequency between the preoperative interview and the 6-month interview from 7.5%-10.0% to 2.5%-5.0% by 6 months. However, functional outcomes were a different matter: Concerns about a failed surgery increased from 10% to 25%, sexual dysfunction from 4% to 8%, and effect on daily function from 4% to 11%.

The study was funded by the University of New Mexico. Dr. McGuire and Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McGuire B et al. SGS 2019, Abstract 01.

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Following pelvic floor surgery, patients regard failure to achieve functional goals as severe adverse events, according to results of a new study. Such negative reactions occur more frequently as time passes and may be related to incongruent patient expectations, which may in turn affect physician-patient communication.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

“We must bridge the gap between expectations and the occurrence of an unanticipated problem. What this study highlights is a need for counseling beyond the traditional complications, and more discussion about the possibility of failure in terms of the things that the patients identify as important,” Brenna McGuire, MD, a resident at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said while presenting the results at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The work highlights the need to look at outcomes in a different way, said Vivian Sung, MD, who was not involved in the research and was a discussant following the presentation. “Most of our studies are designed with methodology to emphasize efficacy and often secondary outcomes to capture complications and adverse events. But there is a gray area. It’s something that’s evolving, and we’re getting better at,” Dr. Sung, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Brown University and a urogynecologist at Women and Infants Hospital, both in Providence, R.I., said in an interview.

The success of a procedure is typically evaluated by determining incontinence during an office visit, but the problem may not be occurring at that particular moment, and the patient may not be happy with the overall outcome. “Sometimes you can fix one problem, and the other problems become more prominent, or new problems develop. [Incontinence alone is] not a perfect picture or what the patient was envisioning her outcome to be,” Dr. Sung said.

Expectations can potentially be better managed through better patient counseling, but that’s not a simple fix either, she noted. Most surgeons counsel patients on negative outcomes, but adverse events with a 5%-10% probability may fail to make an impression. “Really, the rate is zero or 100%. It’s not that it doesn’t seem like a meaningful complication, it’s just that it doesn’t seem like it will happen to you. And then when it does, it can be very devastating depending on what it is and what your expectation was.”

Dr. McGuire and her associates followed 20 women (mean age, 55 years; 50% non-Hispanic white, 25% Hispanic, 25% Native American) at a single institution in New Mexico who underwent surgeries for pelvic floor disorders. They interviewed each participant before and after surgery, at 4-6 weeks, and 6 months after surgery, asking them to rank adverse events at each time point.

Before surgery, patients expressed concerns about postoperative pain, injury, and catheter issues. At 6-8 weeks, the chief concerns were daily activities, sexual activity, and symptom reduction. At 6 months, incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and mental health issues predominated. In other words, concerns migrated from traditional complications to functional outcomes over time.

At the 6-8 week interview, a representative quote was: “It’s the fact that it didn’t work. It’s the fact that I’m still suffering from all the same symptoms.” At 6 months, another quote was: “I hate this so much. It really does impact my life negatively. It affects my work, it affects everything, and makes me very angry.”

Traditional adverse events such as pain and infection dropped in frequency between the preoperative interview and the 6-month interview from 7.5%-10.0% to 2.5%-5.0% by 6 months. However, functional outcomes were a different matter: Concerns about a failed surgery increased from 10% to 25%, sexual dysfunction from 4% to 8%, and effect on daily function from 4% to 11%.

The study was funded by the University of New Mexico. Dr. McGuire and Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McGuire B et al. SGS 2019, Abstract 01.

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Following pelvic floor surgery, patients regard failure to achieve functional goals as severe adverse events, according to results of a new study. Such negative reactions occur more frequently as time passes and may be related to incongruent patient expectations, which may in turn affect physician-patient communication.

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

“We must bridge the gap between expectations and the occurrence of an unanticipated problem. What this study highlights is a need for counseling beyond the traditional complications, and more discussion about the possibility of failure in terms of the things that the patients identify as important,” Brenna McGuire, MD, a resident at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said while presenting the results at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The work highlights the need to look at outcomes in a different way, said Vivian Sung, MD, who was not involved in the research and was a discussant following the presentation. “Most of our studies are designed with methodology to emphasize efficacy and often secondary outcomes to capture complications and adverse events. But there is a gray area. It’s something that’s evolving, and we’re getting better at,” Dr. Sung, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Brown University and a urogynecologist at Women and Infants Hospital, both in Providence, R.I., said in an interview.

The success of a procedure is typically evaluated by determining incontinence during an office visit, but the problem may not be occurring at that particular moment, and the patient may not be happy with the overall outcome. “Sometimes you can fix one problem, and the other problems become more prominent, or new problems develop. [Incontinence alone is] not a perfect picture or what the patient was envisioning her outcome to be,” Dr. Sung said.

Expectations can potentially be better managed through better patient counseling, but that’s not a simple fix either, she noted. Most surgeons counsel patients on negative outcomes, but adverse events with a 5%-10% probability may fail to make an impression. “Really, the rate is zero or 100%. It’s not that it doesn’t seem like a meaningful complication, it’s just that it doesn’t seem like it will happen to you. And then when it does, it can be very devastating depending on what it is and what your expectation was.”

Dr. McGuire and her associates followed 20 women (mean age, 55 years; 50% non-Hispanic white, 25% Hispanic, 25% Native American) at a single institution in New Mexico who underwent surgeries for pelvic floor disorders. They interviewed each participant before and after surgery, at 4-6 weeks, and 6 months after surgery, asking them to rank adverse events at each time point.

Before surgery, patients expressed concerns about postoperative pain, injury, and catheter issues. At 6-8 weeks, the chief concerns were daily activities, sexual activity, and symptom reduction. At 6 months, incontinence, sexual dysfunction, and mental health issues predominated. In other words, concerns migrated from traditional complications to functional outcomes over time.

At the 6-8 week interview, a representative quote was: “It’s the fact that it didn’t work. It’s the fact that I’m still suffering from all the same symptoms.” At 6 months, another quote was: “I hate this so much. It really does impact my life negatively. It affects my work, it affects everything, and makes me very angry.”

Traditional adverse events such as pain and infection dropped in frequency between the preoperative interview and the 6-month interview from 7.5%-10.0% to 2.5%-5.0% by 6 months. However, functional outcomes were a different matter: Concerns about a failed surgery increased from 10% to 25%, sexual dysfunction from 4% to 8%, and effect on daily function from 4% to 11%.

The study was funded by the University of New Mexico. Dr. McGuire and Dr. Sung reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: McGuire B et al. SGS 2019, Abstract 01.