From the Editor

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

Women with endometriosis often present for medical care for one or more of the following health issues: pelvic pain, infertility, and/or an adnexal cyst (endometrioma). For women with moderate or severe pelvic pain and laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis, hormone therapy is often necessary to achieve maximal long-term reduction in pain and optimize health. I focus on opportunities to optimize hormonal treatment of endometriosis in this editorial.

When plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B

Cyclic or continuous combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives are commonly prescribed to treat pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. Although endometriosis pain may initially improve with estrogen-progestin contraceptives, many women on this medication will eventually report that they have worsening pelvic pain that adversely impacts their daily activities. Surprisingly, clinicians often continue to prescribe estrogen-progestin contraceptives even after the patient reports that the treatment is not effective, and their pain continues to be bothersome.

Patients benefit when they have access to the full range of hormone treatments that have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic pain caused by endometriosis (TABLE). In the situation where an estrogen-progestin contraceptive is no longer effective at reducing the pelvic pain, I will often offer the patient the option of norethindrone acetate (NEA) or elagolix treatment. My experience is that stopping the estrogen-progestin contraceptive and starting NEA or elagolix will result in a significant decrease in pain symptoms and improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

Continue to: Norethindrone acetate...

NEA 5 mg daily is approved by the FDA to treat endometriosis.¹ NEA was approved at a time when large controlled clinical trials were not routinely required for a medicine to be approved. The data to support NEA treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis is based on cohort studies. In a study of 194 women, median age 21 years with moderate to severe pelvic pain and surgically proven endometriosis, the effect of NEA on pelvic pain was explored.² The initial dose of NEA was 5 mg daily. If the patient did not achieve a reduction in pelvic pain and amenorrhea on the NEA dose of 5 mg daily, the dose was increased by 2.5 mg every 2 weeks, up to a maximum of 15 mg, until amenorrhea and/or a decrease in pelvic pain was achieved. Ninety-five percent of the women in this cohort had previously been treated with an estrogen-progestin contraceptive or a GnRH antagonist and had discontinued those medications because of inadequate control of pelvic pain or because of side effects of the medication.

In this large cohort, 65% of women reported significant improvement in pelvic pain, with a median pain score of 5 before treatment and 0 following NEA treatment. About 55% of the women reported no side effects. The most commonly reported side effects were weight gain (16%; mean weight gain, 3.1 kg), acne (10%), mood lability (9%), hot flashes (8%), depression (6%), scalp hair loss (4%), headache (4%), nausea (3%), and deepening of the voice (1%). (In this study women could report more than one side effect.)

In another cohort study of 52 women with pelvic pain and surgically confirmed endometriosis, NEA treatment resulted in pain relief in 94% of the women.³ Breakthrough bleeding was a common side effect, reported by 58% of participants. The investigators concluded that NEA treatment was a “cost-effective alternative with relatively mild side effects in the treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.” A conclusion which I endorse.

NEA has been reported to effectively treat ovarian endometriomas and rectovaginal endometriosis.^4,5 In a cohort of 18 women who had previously had the surgical resection of an ovarian endometriosis cyst and had postoperative recurrence of pelvic pain and ovarian endometriosis, treatment was initiated with an escalating NEA regimen.⁴ Treatment was initiated with NEA 5 mg daily, with the dosage increased every 2 weeks by 2.5 mg until amenorrhea was established. Most women achieved amenorrhea with NEA 5 mg daily, and 89% had reduced pelvic pain. The investigators reported complete regression of the endometriosis cyst(s) in 74% of the women. In my experience, NEA does not result in complete regression of endometriosis cysts, but it does cause a reduction in cyst diameter and total volume.

In a retrospective cohort study, 61 women with pelvic pain and rectovaginal endometriosis had 5 years of treatment with NEA 2.5 mg or 5.0 mg daily.⁵ NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and dyschezia. The most common side effects attributed to NEA treatment were weight gain (30%), vaginal bleeding (23%), decreased libido (11%), headache (9%), bloating or swelling (8%), depression (7%), and acne (5%). In women who had sequential imaging studies, NEA treatment resulted in a decrease in rectovaginal lesion volume, stable disease volume, or an increase in lesion volume in 56%, 32%, and 12% of the women, respectively. The investigators concluded that for women with rectovaginal endometriosis, NEA treatment is a low-cost option for long-term treatment.

In my practice, I do not prescribe NEA at doses greater than 5 mg daily. There are case reports that NEA at a dose of ≥10 mg daily is associated with the development of a hepatic adenoma,⁶ elevated liver transaminase concentration,⁷ and jaundice.⁸ If NEA 5 mg daily is not effective in controlling pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, I stop the NEA and start a GnRH analogue, most often elagolix.

NEA 5 mg is not FDA approved as a contraceptive. However, norethindrone 0.35 mg daily, also known as the “mini-pill”, is approved as a progestin-only contraceptive.⁹ NEA is rapidly and completely deacetylated to norethindrone, and the disposition of oral NEA is indistinguishable from that of norethindrone.¹ Since norethindrone 0.35 mg daily is approved as a contraceptive, it is highly likely that NEA 5 mg has contraceptive properties if taken daily.

Continue to: Elagolix...

Elagolix

Elagolix is FDA approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. I reviewed the key studies resulting in FDA approval in the November 2018 issue of OBG Management.¹⁰

In the Elaris Endometriosis-I study, 872 women with endometriosis and pelvic pain were randomly assigned to treatment with 1 of 2 doses of elagolix (high-dose [200 mg twice daily] and low-dose [150 mg once daily]) or placebo.¹¹ After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in dysmenorrhea pain was reported by 76%, 46%, and 20% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.001 for comparisons of elagolix to placebo). After 3 months of therapy, a clinically meaningful reduction in nonmenstrual pain or decreased or stable use of rescue analgesics was reported by 55%, 50%, and 37% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively (P<.01 low-dose elagolix vs placebo and P<.001 high-dose elagolix vs placebo).

Hot flashes that were severe enough to be reported as an adverse event by the study participants were reported by 42%, 24%, and 7% of the women in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups. Bone density was measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. Lumbar bone density changes were -2.61%, -0.32%, and +0.47% and hip femoral neck bone density changes were -1.89%, -0.39%, and +0.02% in the high-dose elagolix, low-dose elagolix, and placebo groups, respectively.

Another large clinical trial of elagolix for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis, Elaris EM-II, involving 817 women, produced results very similar to those reported in Elaris EM-I. The elagolix continuation studies, Elaris EM-III and -IV, demonstrated efficacy and safety of elagolix through 12 months of treatment.¹²

In my 2018 review,¹⁰ I noted that elagolix dose adjustment can be utilized to attempt to achieve maximal pain relief with minimal vasomotor symptoms. Elagolix at 200 mg twice daily produces a mean estradiol concentration of 12 pg/mL, whereas elagolix at 150 mg daily resulted in a mean estradiol concentration of 41 pg/mL.¹³ The estrogen threshold hypothesis posits that in women with endometriosis a stable estradiol concentration of 20 to 30 pg/mL is often associated with decreased pain and fewer vasomotor events.¹⁴ To achieve the target estradiol range of 20 to 30 pg/mL, I often initiate elagolix treatment with 200 mg twice daily. This enables a rapid onset of amenorrhea and a reduction in pelvic pain. Once amenorrhea has been achieved and a decrease in pelvic pain has occurred, I adjust the dose downward to 200 mg twice daily on even calendar days of each month and 200 mg once daily on odd calendar days each month. Some women will have continued pain relief and amenorrhea when the dose is further decreased to 200 mg once daily. If bothersome bleeding recurs and/or pain symptoms increase in severity, the dose can be increased to 200 mg twice daily or an alternating regimen of 200 mg twice daily and 200 mg once daily, every 2 days. An alternative to dose adjustment is to combine elagolix with NEA, which can reduce the severity of hot flashes and reduce bone loss caused by hypoestrogenism.^15,16

Health insurers and pharmacy benefits managers may require a prior authorization before approving and dispensing elagolix. The prior authorization process can be burdensome for clinicians, consuming limited healthcare resources, contributing to burnout and frustrating patients.¹⁷ Elagolix is less expensive than depot-leuprolide acetate and nafarelin nasal spray and somewhat more expensive than a goserelin implant.^18,19

Elagolix is not approved as a contraceptive. In the Elaris EM-I and -II trials women were advised to use 2 forms of contraception, although pregnancies did occur. There were 6 pregnancies among 475 women taking elagolix 150 mg daily and 2 pregnancies among 477 women taking elagolix 200 mg twice daily.²⁰ Women taking elagolix should be advised to use a contraceptive, but not an estrogen-progestin contraceptive.

Continue to: Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis...

Do not use opioids to treat chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis

One of the greatest public health tragedies of our era is the opioid misuse epidemic. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by opioid misuse. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that for the 12-month period ending in May 2020, there were 81,000 opioid-related deaths, the greatest number ever reported in a 12-month period.²¹ Many authorities believe that in the United States opioid medications have been over-prescribed, contributing to the opioid misuse epidemic. There is little evidence that chronic pelvic pain is optimally managed by chronic treatment with an opioid.^22,23 Prescribing opioids to vulnerable individuals to treat chronic pelvic pain may result in opioid dependency and adversely affect the patient’s health. It is best to pledge not to prescribe an opioid medication for a woman with chronic pelvic pain caused by endometriosis. In situations when pelvic pain is difficult to control with hormonal therapy and nonopioid pain medications, referral to a specialty pain practice may be warranted.

Post–conservative surgery hormone treatment reduces pelvic pain recurrence

In a meta-analysis of 14 studies that reported on endometriosis recurrence rates following conservative surgery, recurrence (defined as recurrent pelvic pain or an imaging study showing recurrent endometriosis) was significantly reduced with the use of hormone treatment compared with expectant management or placebo treatment.²⁴ The postoperative relative risk of endometriosis recurrence was reduced by 83% with progestin treatment, 64% with estrogen-progestin contraceptive treatment, and 38% with GnRH analogue treatment. Overall, the number of patients that needed to be treated to prevent one endometriosis recurrence was 10, assuming a recurrence rate of 25% in the placebo treatment or expectant management groups.

For women with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis who develop a recurrence of pelvic pain while on postoperative hormone treatment, it is important for the prescribing clinician to be flexible and consider changing the hormone regimen. For example, if a postoperative patient is treated with a continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive and develops recurrent pain, I will stop the contraceptive and initiate treatment with either NEA or elagolix.

Capitalize on opportunities to improve the medical care of women with endometriosis

Early diagnosis of endometriosis can be facilitated by recognizing that the condition is a common cause of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea. In 5 studies involving 1,187 women, the mean length of time from onset of pelvic pain symptoms to diagnosis of endometriosis was 8.6 years.²⁵ If a woman with pelvic pain caused by endometriosis has not had sufficient pain relief with one brand of continuous estrogen-progestin contraceptive, it is best not to prescribe an alternative brand but rather to switch to a progestin-only treatment or a GnRH antagonist. If plan A is not working, move expeditiously to plan B. ●

During my residency training years, I had many rosy and bold dreams about the future of psychiatry, hoping for many breakthroughs.

Early on, I decided to pursue an academic career, and specifically to focus on the neurobiology of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses. I secured a neuroscience mentor, conducted a research project, and presented my findings at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting. Although at the time everyone used the term “functional” to describe mental illnesses, I was convinced that they were all neurologic conditions, with prominent psychiatric manifestations. And I have been proven right.

After my residency, I eagerly pursued a neuroscience fellowship at the National Institutes of Health. My fantasy was that during my career as a psychiatric neuroscientist, brain exploration would uncover the many mysteries of psychiatric disorders. I was insightful enough to recognize that what I envisioned for the future of psychiatry qualified as science fiction, but I never stopped dreaming.

Today, the advances in psychiatric neuroscience that were unimaginable during my residency have become dazzling discoveries. My journey as a psychiatric neuroscientist has been more thrilling than I ever imagined. I recall doing postmortem research on the brains of hundreds of deceased psychiatric patients, noticing sulci widening and ventricular dilatation, and wondering whether one day we would be able to detect those atrophic changes while the patients were alive. Although I measured those changes in postmortem brains, I was cognizant that due to preservation artifacts, such measurements were less reliable than measurements of living brains.

And then the advent of neuroimaging fulfilled my fantasies. This began towards the end of my fellowship, and has exploded with neurobiologic findings throughout my academic career. Then came dramatic methodologies to probe brain molecular and cellular pathologies, followed by breakthrough clinical advances. Entirely new vistas of research into psychiatric brain disorders are opening every day. The exhilaration will never end!

From science fiction to clinical reality

Here is a quick outline of some of the “science fiction” of psychiatry that has come true since my training days. Back then, these discoveries were completely absent from the radar screen of psychiatry, when it was still a fledgling medical specialty struggling to emerge from the dominant yet nonempirical era of psychoanalysis.

Brain exploration methods. Unpre­cedented breakthroughs in computer technology have allowed psychiatric neuroscientists to create a new field of neuroimaging research that includes:

• cerebral blood flow (CBF)
• position emission tomography (PET)
• single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Continue to: These functional neuroimaging...

These functional neuroimaging methods (using ionizing radiation) have enabled clinicians to see abnormal blood flow patterns in the brains of living patients. One of the earliest findings was hypofrontality in patients with schizophrenia, implicating frontal pathology in this severe brain disorder. PET was also used for dopamine and serotonin receptor imaging.

Computerized axia tomography. Compared with skull X-rays, CT (“CAT”) scans provided a more detailed view of brain tissue, and began a structural neuroimaging revolution that enriched psychiatric research, but also was applied to organs other than the brain.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) became the “big kahuna” of neuroimaging when arrived in the early 1980s and quickly supplanted CT research because it is safer (no ionizing radiation, and it can be repeated multiple times with or without tasks). It also provided exquisite neuroanatomical details of brain tissue with stunning fidelity. Subsequently, several MRI techniques/software programs were developed that advanced research in psychiatry to multiple new frontiers, including:

• Morphological neuroimaging with MRI
• Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), which acts like a living, noninvasive biopsy of several chemicals (such as choline, lactate, glutamine, adenosine triphosphate, and the neuronal marker N-acetylcysteine) in a small volume (≤1 cc) of neural tissue in various regions
• Functional MRI (fMRI), which measures blood flow changes during actual or imagined tasks in the brains of patients vs healthy controls
• Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which evaluates the integrity of white matter (60% of brain volume, including 137,000 miles of myelinated fibers) by measuring the flow of water inside myelinated fibers (anisotropy and diffusivity). DTI of the corpus callosum, the largest brain commissure that is comprised of 200 million interhemispheric fibers, has revealed many abnormalities. This was one of the structures I investigated during my fellowship, including a histopathological study.¹

All 4 of these neuroimaging techniques continue to generate a wealth of data about brain structure and function in psychosis, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and substance use disorders. All these discoveries were utterly impossible to predict during my residency. I am proud to have published the first reports in the literature of ventricular enlargement in patients with bipolar disorder,² cortical atrophy in schizophrenia and mania,³ reductions of hippocampal volume in patients with schizophrenia using MRS,⁴ and progressive brain atrophy in patients with schizophrenia.⁵ It is especially gratifying that I played a small role in translating my science fiction fantasies into clinical reality!

Other breakthrough methodologies that are advancing psychiatric neuroscience today but were science fiction during my residency days include:

• Pluripotent stem cells, which enable the de-differentiation of adult skin cells and then re-differentiating them into any type of cell, including neurons. This allows researchers to conduct studies on any patient’s brain cells without needing to do an invasive, high-risk brain biopsy. As a young resident, I would never have predicted that this virtual brain biopsy would be possible!
• Optogenetics, which enables controlling cell behavior using light and genetically encoded light-sensitive proteins. This triggered a cornucopia of neuroscience discoveries by using optogenetics to modulate cell-signaling cascades to understand cellular biology. Halorhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are used as tools to turn neurons off or on rapidly and safely.
• Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revolutionized the field of molecular neurogenetics and are enabling clinicians to detect risk genes by comparing the DNA samples of thousands of psychiatric patients with thousands of healthy controls. This is how several hundred risk genes have been identified for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and more to come.
• Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) is a remarkable genetic “scissors” (that earned its inventors the 2020 Nobel Prize) that allows splicing out a disease gene and splicing in a normal gene. This will have an enormous future application in preventing an adulthood illness at its roots during fetal life. The future medical implications for psychiatric disorders are prodigious!

Continue to: Clinical advances

Clinical advances. Many therapies or approaches that did not exist during my residency (and how I dreamed about them back then!) are available to today’s clinicians. These include:

• Rapid-acting antidepressants that reverse severe and chronic depression and suicidal urges within a few hours or a couple of days. As a resident, I waited for weeks or months to see patients with depression reach the full remission that is now achieved practically the same day with IV ketamine, intranasal esketamine, IV scopolamine, and inhalable nitrous oxide. During my residency, the closest thing we had to a rapid-acting treatment for depression was electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), but that usually took 2 to 3 weeks. Psychiatric clinicians should never cease to appreciate how an intractable, treatment-refractory depression can rapidly be turned off like a light switch, restoring normal mood to desperately ill persons.
• Neuromodulation techniques are flourishing. Beyond ECT, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), near-infrared radiation (NIR), and focused ultrasound (FUS) are approved or under development, offering millions of patients with various neuropsychiatric disorders potential recovery not with pharmacotherapy, but via a brain-targeted approach.
• Telepsychiatry. Now taken for granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, telepsychiatry was completely unimaginable during my residency. Yes, we had phones, but not smartphones! The only “zoom” we knew was the furious sound of a sports car engine! To be able to see and evaluate a patient literally anywhere in the world was science fiction personified! Increased remote access to psychiatric care by patients everywhere is a truly remarkable advance that helped avoid a disastrous lack of psychiatric treatment during the current pandemic that brought in-person interactions between psychiatric physicians and their patients to a screeching halt.
• Neurobiologic effects of psychotherapy. Viewing psychotherapy as a neurobiologic treatment was totally unknown and unimaginable during my residency. I was heavily trained in various types of psychotherapies, but not once did any of my supervisors mention experiential neuroplasticity as a brain-altering process, or that psychotherapy changes brain structure, induces experimental neuroplasticity, and induces billions of dendritic spines in patients’ cortex and limbic structures, helping them connect the dots and develop new insights. No one knew that psychotherapy can mimic the neural effects of pharmacotherapy.
• Immunomodulatory effects of psychotherapy. It was completely unknown that psychotherapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy can lower levels of inflammatory biomarkers in patients’ CSF and serum. Back then, no one imagined that psychotherapy had immunomodulatory effects. These discoveries are revolutionary for us psychiatrists and confirm the neurobiologic mechanisms of psychotherapy for every patient we treat.
• Epigenetics. This was rarely, if ever, mentioned when I was a resident. We knew from clinical studies that children who were abused or neglected often develop severe mood or psychotic disorders in adulthood. But we did not know that trauma modifies some genes via under- or overexpression, and that such epigenetic changes alter brain development towards psychopathology. The mysteries of psychiatric brain disorders generated by childhood trauma have been clarified by advances in epigenetics.

Aspirational, futuristic therapies. Even now, as a seasoned psychiatric neuroscientist, I continue to dream. Research is providing many clues for potentially radical psychiatric treatments that go beyond standard antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anxiolytics. But today, I fully expect that scientific dreams eventually come true through research. For example, the following neuroscientific therapeutics strategies may someday become routine in clinical practice:

• microglia inhibition
• mitochondria repair
• anti-apoptotic therapy
• white matter connectivity restoration
• neuroprotection (enhancing neurogenesis, increasing neurotropic factors, and enhancing synaptogenesis)
• reverse glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate hypofunction
• prevent amyloid formation.

Data analysis breakthroughs. Side-by-side with the explosion of new findings and amassing mountains of data in psychiatric neuroscience, unprecedented and revolutionary data-management techniques have emerged to facilitate the herculean task of data analysis to extract the mythical needle in a haystack and derive the overall impact of masses of data. These techniques, whose names were not in our vocabulary during my residency days, include:

• machine learning
• artificial intelligence
• deep learning
• big data.

With the help of powerful computers and ingenious software, discovering critical nuggets of knowledge about the brain and predicting the best approaches to healing dysfunctional brains are now possible. Those powerful methods of analyzing massive data are the vehicles for transforming science fiction to reality by assembling the jigsaw puzzle(s) of the human brain, arguably the last frontier in medical science.

My life experiences as a psychiatric neuroscientist have convinced me that nothing is beyond the reach of scientific research. Unraveling the divine brain’s complexities will eventually become reality. So, let us never stop dreaming and fantasizing!

During my residency training years, I had many rosy and bold dreams about the future of psychiatry, hoping for many breakthroughs.

Early on, I decided to pursue an academic career, and specifically to focus on the neurobiology of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses. I secured a neuroscience mentor, conducted a research project, and presented my findings at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting. Although at the time everyone used the term “functional” to describe mental illnesses, I was convinced that they were all neurologic conditions, with prominent psychiatric manifestations. And I have been proven right.

After my residency, I eagerly pursued a neuroscience fellowship at the National Institutes of Health. My fantasy was that during my career as a psychiatric neuroscientist, brain exploration would uncover the many mysteries of psychiatric disorders. I was insightful enough to recognize that what I envisioned for the future of psychiatry qualified as science fiction, but I never stopped dreaming.

Today, the advances in psychiatric neuroscience that were unimaginable during my residency have become dazzling discoveries. My journey as a psychiatric neuroscientist has been more thrilling than I ever imagined. I recall doing postmortem research on the brains of hundreds of deceased psychiatric patients, noticing sulci widening and ventricular dilatation, and wondering whether one day we would be able to detect those atrophic changes while the patients were alive. Although I measured those changes in postmortem brains, I was cognizant that due to preservation artifacts, such measurements were less reliable than measurements of living brains.

And then the advent of neuroimaging fulfilled my fantasies. This began towards the end of my fellowship, and has exploded with neurobiologic findings throughout my academic career. Then came dramatic methodologies to probe brain molecular and cellular pathologies, followed by breakthrough clinical advances. Entirely new vistas of research into psychiatric brain disorders are opening every day. The exhilaration will never end!

From science fiction to clinical reality

Here is a quick outline of some of the “science fiction” of psychiatry that has come true since my training days. Back then, these discoveries were completely absent from the radar screen of psychiatry, when it was still a fledgling medical specialty struggling to emerge from the dominant yet nonempirical era of psychoanalysis.

Brain exploration methods. Unpre­cedented breakthroughs in computer technology have allowed psychiatric neuroscientists to create a new field of neuroimaging research that includes:

• cerebral blood flow (CBF)
• position emission tomography (PET)
• single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Continue to: These functional neuroimaging...

These functional neuroimaging methods (using ionizing radiation) have enabled clinicians to see abnormal blood flow patterns in the brains of living patients. One of the earliest findings was hypofrontality in patients with schizophrenia, implicating frontal pathology in this severe brain disorder. PET was also used for dopamine and serotonin receptor imaging.

Computerized axia tomography. Compared with skull X-rays, CT (“CAT”) scans provided a more detailed view of brain tissue, and began a structural neuroimaging revolution that enriched psychiatric research, but also was applied to organs other than the brain.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) became the “big kahuna” of neuroimaging when arrived in the early 1980s and quickly supplanted CT research because it is safer (no ionizing radiation, and it can be repeated multiple times with or without tasks). It also provided exquisite neuroanatomical details of brain tissue with stunning fidelity. Subsequently, several MRI techniques/software programs were developed that advanced research in psychiatry to multiple new frontiers, including:

• Morphological neuroimaging with MRI
• Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), which acts like a living, noninvasive biopsy of several chemicals (such as choline, lactate, glutamine, adenosine triphosphate, and the neuronal marker N-acetylcysteine) in a small volume (≤1 cc) of neural tissue in various regions
• Functional MRI (fMRI), which measures blood flow changes during actual or imagined tasks in the brains of patients vs healthy controls
• Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which evaluates the integrity of white matter (60% of brain volume, including 137,000 miles of myelinated fibers) by measuring the flow of water inside myelinated fibers (anisotropy and diffusivity). DTI of the corpus callosum, the largest brain commissure that is comprised of 200 million interhemispheric fibers, has revealed many abnormalities. This was one of the structures I investigated during my fellowship, including a histopathological study.¹

All 4 of these neuroimaging techniques continue to generate a wealth of data about brain structure and function in psychosis, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and substance use disorders. All these discoveries were utterly impossible to predict during my residency. I am proud to have published the first reports in the literature of ventricular enlargement in patients with bipolar disorder,² cortical atrophy in schizophrenia and mania,³ reductions of hippocampal volume in patients with schizophrenia using MRS,⁴ and progressive brain atrophy in patients with schizophrenia.⁵ It is especially gratifying that I played a small role in translating my science fiction fantasies into clinical reality!

Other breakthrough methodologies that are advancing psychiatric neuroscience today but were science fiction during my residency days include:

• Pluripotent stem cells, which enable the de-differentiation of adult skin cells and then re-differentiating them into any type of cell, including neurons. This allows researchers to conduct studies on any patient’s brain cells without needing to do an invasive, high-risk brain biopsy. As a young resident, I would never have predicted that this virtual brain biopsy would be possible!
• Optogenetics, which enables controlling cell behavior using light and genetically encoded light-sensitive proteins. This triggered a cornucopia of neuroscience discoveries by using optogenetics to modulate cell-signaling cascades to understand cellular biology. Halorhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are used as tools to turn neurons off or on rapidly and safely.
• Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revolutionized the field of molecular neurogenetics and are enabling clinicians to detect risk genes by comparing the DNA samples of thousands of psychiatric patients with thousands of healthy controls. This is how several hundred risk genes have been identified for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and more to come.
• Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) is a remarkable genetic “scissors” (that earned its inventors the 2020 Nobel Prize) that allows splicing out a disease gene and splicing in a normal gene. This will have an enormous future application in preventing an adulthood illness at its roots during fetal life. The future medical implications for psychiatric disorders are prodigious!

Continue to: Clinical advances

Clinical advances. Many therapies or approaches that did not exist during my residency (and how I dreamed about them back then!) are available to today’s clinicians. These include:

• Rapid-acting antidepressants that reverse severe and chronic depression and suicidal urges within a few hours or a couple of days. As a resident, I waited for weeks or months to see patients with depression reach the full remission that is now achieved practically the same day with IV ketamine, intranasal esketamine, IV scopolamine, and inhalable nitrous oxide. During my residency, the closest thing we had to a rapid-acting treatment for depression was electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), but that usually took 2 to 3 weeks. Psychiatric clinicians should never cease to appreciate how an intractable, treatment-refractory depression can rapidly be turned off like a light switch, restoring normal mood to desperately ill persons.
• Neuromodulation techniques are flourishing. Beyond ECT, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), near-infrared radiation (NIR), and focused ultrasound (FUS) are approved or under development, offering millions of patients with various neuropsychiatric disorders potential recovery not with pharmacotherapy, but via a brain-targeted approach.
• Telepsychiatry. Now taken for granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, telepsychiatry was completely unimaginable during my residency. Yes, we had phones, but not smartphones! The only “zoom” we knew was the furious sound of a sports car engine! To be able to see and evaluate a patient literally anywhere in the world was science fiction personified! Increased remote access to psychiatric care by patients everywhere is a truly remarkable advance that helped avoid a disastrous lack of psychiatric treatment during the current pandemic that brought in-person interactions between psychiatric physicians and their patients to a screeching halt.
• Neurobiologic effects of psychotherapy. Viewing psychotherapy as a neurobiologic treatment was totally unknown and unimaginable during my residency. I was heavily trained in various types of psychotherapies, but not once did any of my supervisors mention experiential neuroplasticity as a brain-altering process, or that psychotherapy changes brain structure, induces experimental neuroplasticity, and induces billions of dendritic spines in patients’ cortex and limbic structures, helping them connect the dots and develop new insights. No one knew that psychotherapy can mimic the neural effects of pharmacotherapy.
• Immunomodulatory effects of psychotherapy. It was completely unknown that psychotherapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy can lower levels of inflammatory biomarkers in patients’ CSF and serum. Back then, no one imagined that psychotherapy had immunomodulatory effects. These discoveries are revolutionary for us psychiatrists and confirm the neurobiologic mechanisms of psychotherapy for every patient we treat.
• Epigenetics. This was rarely, if ever, mentioned when I was a resident. We knew from clinical studies that children who were abused or neglected often develop severe mood or psychotic disorders in adulthood. But we did not know that trauma modifies some genes via under- or overexpression, and that such epigenetic changes alter brain development towards psychopathology. The mysteries of psychiatric brain disorders generated by childhood trauma have been clarified by advances in epigenetics.

Aspirational, futuristic therapies. Even now, as a seasoned psychiatric neuroscientist, I continue to dream. Research is providing many clues for potentially radical psychiatric treatments that go beyond standard antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anxiolytics. But today, I fully expect that scientific dreams eventually come true through research. For example, the following neuroscientific therapeutics strategies may someday become routine in clinical practice:

• microglia inhibition
• mitochondria repair
• anti-apoptotic therapy
• white matter connectivity restoration
• neuroprotection (enhancing neurogenesis, increasing neurotropic factors, and enhancing synaptogenesis)
• reverse glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate hypofunction
• prevent amyloid formation.

Data analysis breakthroughs. Side-by-side with the explosion of new findings and amassing mountains of data in psychiatric neuroscience, unprecedented and revolutionary data-management techniques have emerged to facilitate the herculean task of data analysis to extract the mythical needle in a haystack and derive the overall impact of masses of data. These techniques, whose names were not in our vocabulary during my residency days, include:

• machine learning
• artificial intelligence
• deep learning
• big data.

With the help of powerful computers and ingenious software, discovering critical nuggets of knowledge about the brain and predicting the best approaches to healing dysfunctional brains are now possible. Those powerful methods of analyzing massive data are the vehicles for transforming science fiction to reality by assembling the jigsaw puzzle(s) of the human brain, arguably the last frontier in medical science.

My life experiences as a psychiatric neuroscientist have convinced me that nothing is beyond the reach of scientific research. Unraveling the divine brain’s complexities will eventually become reality. So, let us never stop dreaming and fantasizing!

During my residency training years, I had many rosy and bold dreams about the future of psychiatry, hoping for many breakthroughs.

Early on, I decided to pursue an academic career, and specifically to focus on the neurobiology of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses. I secured a neuroscience mentor, conducted a research project, and presented my findings at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting. Although at the time everyone used the term “functional” to describe mental illnesses, I was convinced that they were all neurologic conditions, with prominent psychiatric manifestations. And I have been proven right.

After my residency, I eagerly pursued a neuroscience fellowship at the National Institutes of Health. My fantasy was that during my career as a psychiatric neuroscientist, brain exploration would uncover the many mysteries of psychiatric disorders. I was insightful enough to recognize that what I envisioned for the future of psychiatry qualified as science fiction, but I never stopped dreaming.

Today, the advances in psychiatric neuroscience that were unimaginable during my residency have become dazzling discoveries. My journey as a psychiatric neuroscientist has been more thrilling than I ever imagined. I recall doing postmortem research on the brains of hundreds of deceased psychiatric patients, noticing sulci widening and ventricular dilatation, and wondering whether one day we would be able to detect those atrophic changes while the patients were alive. Although I measured those changes in postmortem brains, I was cognizant that due to preservation artifacts, such measurements were less reliable than measurements of living brains.

And then the advent of neuroimaging fulfilled my fantasies. This began towards the end of my fellowship, and has exploded with neurobiologic findings throughout my academic career. Then came dramatic methodologies to probe brain molecular and cellular pathologies, followed by breakthrough clinical advances. Entirely new vistas of research into psychiatric brain disorders are opening every day. The exhilaration will never end!

From science fiction to clinical reality

Here is a quick outline of some of the “science fiction” of psychiatry that has come true since my training days. Back then, these discoveries were completely absent from the radar screen of psychiatry, when it was still a fledgling medical specialty struggling to emerge from the dominant yet nonempirical era of psychoanalysis.

Brain exploration methods. Unpre­cedented breakthroughs in computer technology have allowed psychiatric neuroscientists to create a new field of neuroimaging research that includes:

• cerebral blood flow (CBF)
• position emission tomography (PET)
• single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Continue to: These functional neuroimaging...

These functional neuroimaging methods (using ionizing radiation) have enabled clinicians to see abnormal blood flow patterns in the brains of living patients. One of the earliest findings was hypofrontality in patients with schizophrenia, implicating frontal pathology in this severe brain disorder. PET was also used for dopamine and serotonin receptor imaging.

Computerized axia tomography. Compared with skull X-rays, CT (“CAT”) scans provided a more detailed view of brain tissue, and began a structural neuroimaging revolution that enriched psychiatric research, but also was applied to organs other than the brain.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) became the “big kahuna” of neuroimaging when arrived in the early 1980s and quickly supplanted CT research because it is safer (no ionizing radiation, and it can be repeated multiple times with or without tasks). It also provided exquisite neuroanatomical details of brain tissue with stunning fidelity. Subsequently, several MRI techniques/software programs were developed that advanced research in psychiatry to multiple new frontiers, including:

• Morphological neuroimaging with MRI
• Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), which acts like a living, noninvasive biopsy of several chemicals (such as choline, lactate, glutamine, adenosine triphosphate, and the neuronal marker N-acetylcysteine) in a small volume (≤1 cc) of neural tissue in various regions
• Functional MRI (fMRI), which measures blood flow changes during actual or imagined tasks in the brains of patients vs healthy controls
• Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which evaluates the integrity of white matter (60% of brain volume, including 137,000 miles of myelinated fibers) by measuring the flow of water inside myelinated fibers (anisotropy and diffusivity). DTI of the corpus callosum, the largest brain commissure that is comprised of 200 million interhemispheric fibers, has revealed many abnormalities. This was one of the structures I investigated during my fellowship, including a histopathological study.¹

All 4 of these neuroimaging techniques continue to generate a wealth of data about brain structure and function in psychosis, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and substance use disorders. All these discoveries were utterly impossible to predict during my residency. I am proud to have published the first reports in the literature of ventricular enlargement in patients with bipolar disorder,² cortical atrophy in schizophrenia and mania,³ reductions of hippocampal volume in patients with schizophrenia using MRS,⁴ and progressive brain atrophy in patients with schizophrenia.⁵ It is especially gratifying that I played a small role in translating my science fiction fantasies into clinical reality!

Other breakthrough methodologies that are advancing psychiatric neuroscience today but were science fiction during my residency days include:

• Pluripotent stem cells, which enable the de-differentiation of adult skin cells and then re-differentiating them into any type of cell, including neurons. This allows researchers to conduct studies on any patient’s brain cells without needing to do an invasive, high-risk brain biopsy. As a young resident, I would never have predicted that this virtual brain biopsy would be possible!
• Optogenetics, which enables controlling cell behavior using light and genetically encoded light-sensitive proteins. This triggered a cornucopia of neuroscience discoveries by using optogenetics to modulate cell-signaling cascades to understand cellular biology. Halorhodopsin and bacteriorhodopsin are used as tools to turn neurons off or on rapidly and safely.
• Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revolutionized the field of molecular neurogenetics and are enabling clinicians to detect risk genes by comparing the DNA samples of thousands of psychiatric patients with thousands of healthy controls. This is how several hundred risk genes have been identified for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and more to come.
• Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) is a remarkable genetic “scissors” (that earned its inventors the 2020 Nobel Prize) that allows splicing out a disease gene and splicing in a normal gene. This will have an enormous future application in preventing an adulthood illness at its roots during fetal life. The future medical implications for psychiatric disorders are prodigious!

Continue to: Clinical advances

Clinical advances. Many therapies or approaches that did not exist during my residency (and how I dreamed about them back then!) are available to today’s clinicians. These include:

• Rapid-acting antidepressants that reverse severe and chronic depression and suicidal urges within a few hours or a couple of days. As a resident, I waited for weeks or months to see patients with depression reach the full remission that is now achieved practically the same day with IV ketamine, intranasal esketamine, IV scopolamine, and inhalable nitrous oxide. During my residency, the closest thing we had to a rapid-acting treatment for depression was electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), but that usually took 2 to 3 weeks. Psychiatric clinicians should never cease to appreciate how an intractable, treatment-refractory depression can rapidly be turned off like a light switch, restoring normal mood to desperately ill persons.
• Neuromodulation techniques are flourishing. Beyond ECT, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), low field magnetic stimulation (LFMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST), near-infrared radiation (NIR), and focused ultrasound (FUS) are approved or under development, offering millions of patients with various neuropsychiatric disorders potential recovery not with pharmacotherapy, but via a brain-targeted approach.
• Telepsychiatry. Now taken for granted during the COVID-19 pandemic, telepsychiatry was completely unimaginable during my residency. Yes, we had phones, but not smartphones! The only “zoom” we knew was the furious sound of a sports car engine! To be able to see and evaluate a patient literally anywhere in the world was science fiction personified! Increased remote access to psychiatric care by patients everywhere is a truly remarkable advance that helped avoid a disastrous lack of psychiatric treatment during the current pandemic that brought in-person interactions between psychiatric physicians and their patients to a screeching halt.
• Neurobiologic effects of psychotherapy. Viewing psychotherapy as a neurobiologic treatment was totally unknown and unimaginable during my residency. I was heavily trained in various types of psychotherapies, but not once did any of my supervisors mention experiential neuroplasticity as a brain-altering process, or that psychotherapy changes brain structure, induces experimental neuroplasticity, and induces billions of dendritic spines in patients’ cortex and limbic structures, helping them connect the dots and develop new insights. No one knew that psychotherapy can mimic the neural effects of pharmacotherapy.
• Immunomodulatory effects of psychotherapy. It was completely unknown that psychotherapies such as cognitive-behavioral therapy can lower levels of inflammatory biomarkers in patients’ CSF and serum. Back then, no one imagined that psychotherapy had immunomodulatory effects. These discoveries are revolutionary for us psychiatrists and confirm the neurobiologic mechanisms of psychotherapy for every patient we treat.
• Epigenetics. This was rarely, if ever, mentioned when I was a resident. We knew from clinical studies that children who were abused or neglected often develop severe mood or psychotic disorders in adulthood. But we did not know that trauma modifies some genes via under- or overexpression, and that such epigenetic changes alter brain development towards psychopathology. The mysteries of psychiatric brain disorders generated by childhood trauma have been clarified by advances in epigenetics.

Aspirational, futuristic therapies. Even now, as a seasoned psychiatric neuroscientist, I continue to dream. Research is providing many clues for potentially radical psychiatric treatments that go beyond standard antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anxiolytics. But today, I fully expect that scientific dreams eventually come true through research. For example, the following neuroscientific therapeutics strategies may someday become routine in clinical practice:

• microglia inhibition
• mitochondria repair
• anti-apoptotic therapy
• white matter connectivity restoration
• neuroprotection (enhancing neurogenesis, increasing neurotropic factors, and enhancing synaptogenesis)
• reverse glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate hypofunction
• prevent amyloid formation.

Data analysis breakthroughs. Side-by-side with the explosion of new findings and amassing mountains of data in psychiatric neuroscience, unprecedented and revolutionary data-management techniques have emerged to facilitate the herculean task of data analysis to extract the mythical needle in a haystack and derive the overall impact of masses of data. These techniques, whose names were not in our vocabulary during my residency days, include:

• machine learning
• artificial intelligence
• deep learning
• big data.

With the help of powerful computers and ingenious software, discovering critical nuggets of knowledge about the brain and predicting the best approaches to healing dysfunctional brains are now possible. Those powerful methods of analyzing massive data are the vehicles for transforming science fiction to reality by assembling the jigsaw puzzle(s) of the human brain, arguably the last frontier in medical science.

My life experiences as a psychiatric neuroscientist have convinced me that nothing is beyond the reach of scientific research. Unraveling the divine brain’s complexities will eventually become reality. So, let us never stop dreaming and fantasizing!

For women with a Bishop score ≤6, CR is an important first step in planned induction of labor (IOL). CR is believed to reduce the length of labor induction and increase the probability of a vaginal delivery. Historically, CR has been undertaken on a labor unit. However, with an increased rate of labor induction, the resources of the modern labor unit are incredibly stressed. Compounding the problem is the nursing shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in staff being unavailable as they recover from a respiratory infection or are quarantined after an exposure. The COVID-19 pandemic also has motivated many patients to avoid the hospital as much as possible.

Office-based ambulatory CR is an alternative to inpatient CR and has the potential to reduce the use of labor unit resources. When CR is initiated in the office, the patient either is sent home overnight to return to the labor unit for IOL in the morning or is sent home in the morning to return for IOL in the evening or at night. A secondary benefit of office- and home-based CR is that it may increase patient satisfaction with the process of CR. This editorial summarizes the literature supporting office-based ambulatory CR.

Mechanical methods of CR

Contemporary mechanical methods of CR include the transcervical insertion of a Foley catheter, Cook double-balloon CR catheter, Dilapan-S, or laminaria. There are many publications reporting the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with transcervical balloon catheters and very few publications reporting on the use of Dilapan-S or laminaria for ambulatory CR.

Foley catheter

Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of transcervical Foley catheter for ambulatory CR. Policiano and colleagues compared the effectiveness of ambulatory versus inpatient Foley catheter CR.¹ A total of 130 women with a Bishop score <6 at ≥41 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter (Covidian Dover Silicon coated latex Foley catheter 16 Fr/5.3 mm diameter). The Foley catheter bulb was distended with 40 mL of a sterile saline solution. The end of the Foley was taped to the patient’s inner thigh. Manual traction was gently applied to the catheter every 6 hours. If the catheter was extruded, the Bishop score was assessed. For a Bishop score <6, the patient was given additional inpatient misoprostol (25 µg vaginally every 4 hours for up to 5 doses). For a Bishop score ≥6, intravenous oxytocin IOL was initiated. At 24 hours if the Foley catheter was still in situ, it was removed. Women were excluded from the study for the following factors: noncephalic presentation, spontaneous labor, hydramnios, nonreassuring cardiotocography (CTG), multiple pregnancy, ruptured membranes, active vaginal bleeding, Streptococcus group B infection, and HIV infection. Prostaglandin CR was not used if the woman had a previous cesarean delivery. No prophylactic antibiotics were administered. After placement of the Foley catheter, reassuring CTG was documented prior to sending the patient home.

Outpatient, compared with inpatient, CR resulted in a mean reduction of 10 hours in the time from admission to delivery. The time from insertion of the Foley catheter to delivery in the outpatient group was 38.2 hours, and 44.9 hours for the inpatient group (P<.01). The cesarean delivery rates were similar in both groups—28% and 38%, respectively. Three cases of chorioamnionitis occurred in each group. These study results support the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with a transcervical Foley.

Ausbeck and colleagues randomly assigned 126 nulliparous women with a Bishop score <5, at a gestational age ranging from 39 weeks and 0 days through 41 weeks and 6 days, to outpatient overnight CR or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.² Breech presentation and multiple gestation pregnancies were excluded from the study. The investigators utilized a 16 French Foley catheter and filled the balloon with 30 mL of sterile water. The Foley was taped to the woman’s inner thigh on slight tension. After placement of the Foley catheter at least 20 minutes of CTG monitoring was performed. The women in the outpatient group were given the contact number for the labor unit and advised that they could take acetaminophen for pain. They were advised that they could stay at home if the Foley catheter was expelled. They were admitted to the labor unit at the time scheduled for their IOL.

The mean time from admission to delivery was reduced by 4.3 hours in the outpatient compared with the inpatient CR group (17.4 vs 21.7 hours; P<.01). In the outpatient CR group, 22% of the women were admitted to labor before the time of the scheduled IOL. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient CR groups (24% vs 33%, P = .32). In the outpatient and inpatient groups, chorioamnionitis was diagnosed in 22% and 13% (P = .16) of the women. The authors concluded that outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter reduced the time from admission to delivery.

Other research groups also have confirmed the feasibility of outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.^3-5

Placement of the Foley catheter can be performed digitally without direct visualization of the cervix or by direct visualization using a vaginal speculum. After placement of the speculum, the cervix is cleansed with a povidone-iodine solution and a sterile ring forceps is used to grasp the catheter and guide it through the cervical os. In one small study, self-reported pain was similar for both digital and direct visualization methods for placement of the balloon catheter.⁶ When using Foley catheter CR, filling the standard Foley catheter balloon with 60 mL of fluid, rather than 30 to 40 mL of fluid, is rarely associated with balloon rupture and may result in more effective CR.^6,7

Continue to: Double-balloon catheter...

The Cook double-balloon catheter for CR is meant to create pressure on both sides of the cervix, facilitating CR. Studies have reported that the Cook double-balloon catheter can be used for outpatient CR. In one study, 48 women with a low-risk pregnancy, at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score <7 were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient double-balloon CR.⁸ Both balloons were filled with 70 to 80 mL of sterile water. CTG monitoring was performed for 20 minutes before and after balloon placement. The women in the outpatient CR group were instructed to return to the labor unit the next day at 8 AM for IOL or earlier if they had regular uterine contractions, rupture of membranes, or vaginal bleeding. Seven percent of the women in the outpatient group returned to the labor unit before 8 AM. After removal of the balloon catheter, women in the outpatient and inpatient groups needed additional misoprostol CR in 12% and 13% of cases, respectively. Outcomes were similar in the two groups, but the study was not powered to identify small differences between the groups.

In another study of outpatient CR with the Cook double-balloon catheter, 695 women with a Bishop score <7, at ≥37 weeks’ gestation, were randomly assigned to outpatient CR with a double-balloon catheter or inpatient CR with dinoprostone (PGE₂) (2 mg dinoprostone vaginal gel [Prostin] or dinoprostone 10 mg controlled-release tape (Cervidil).⁹ Women assigned to dinoprostone CR had CTG monitoring prior to commencing PGE₂ CR and at least 30 min of CTG monitoring after insertion of the vaginal PGE₂. Women assigned to balloon CR were not admitted to the hospital. CTG was performed prior to insertion of the balloon. After insertion, the two balloons on the catheter were each filled with 80 mL of saline. After catheter insertion CTG monitoring was not routinely performed. The women in the double-balloon catheter group returned to the labor unit 12 hours after insertion to initiate IOL. The primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity and mortality, including admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), intubation, cardiac compressions, acidemia, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth, or death.

There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary outcome in the catheter versus the PGE₂ group (18.6% and 25.8%; P = .07). Admission to the NICU occurred at rates of 12.6% and 15.5% in the catheter and PGE₂ groups. Umbilical cord arterial pH <7.00 at birth occurred at a rate of 3.5% in the catheter group and 9.2% in the PGE₂ group. The cesarean delivery rates in the catheter and PGE groups were 32.6% and 25.8%, respectively (P = .24). The investigators concluded that outpatient CR using a double-balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women.

Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported that outcomes were similar when using the Foley or double-balloon catheter for CR.^10,11 The Cook double-balloon CR kit includes a stylet, which can facilitate passing the catheter through the cervix.

Continue to: Dilapan-S and laminaria...

There are many published studies using Dilapan-S and laminaria for cervical preparation prior to uterine evacuation.¹² There are few published studies using Dilapan-S or laminaria for CR prior to IOL. In a pilot study, 21 patients were randomly assigned to outpatient versus inpatient Dilapan-S for CR the night prior to scheduled oxytocin IOL.¹³ The length of time from initiation of oxytocin to delivery in the outpatient and inpatient groups was similar (11 vs 14 hours, respectively). The outpatient compared with the inpatient group had a shorter length of hospitalization until delivery (51 vs 70 hours).

In other studies of Dilapan-S for CR, the patients remained in the hospital once the dilators were inserted. In one small trial, 41 women were randomized to CR with Dilapan-S or laminaria. As many dilators as could be comfortably tolerated by the patient were inserted.¹⁴ The mean numbers of Dilapan-S and laminaria dilators inserted were 4.3 and 9.7, respectively. The morning after the insertion of the dilators, oxytocin IOL was initiated. The times from initiation of oxytocin to delivery for the women in the Dilapan-S and laminaria groups were 11.6 and 15.5 hours, respectively.

An observational study reported on outcomes with Dilapan-S for CR on inpatients.¹⁵ In the study 444 women scheduled for IOL at 37 to 40 weeks’ gestation, with a mean baseline Bishop score of 2.9, had Dilapan-S placed for approximately 15 hours prior to oxytocin IOL. The mean number of Dilapan-S dilators that were inserted was 3.8. The study protocol prohibited placing more than 5 cervical dilator devices. The mean Bishop score after removal of the dilators was 6.5. The most common adverse effects of Dilapan-S CR were bleeding (2.7%) and pain (0.2%). The cesarean delivery rate in the cohort was 30.1%. An Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes was recorded for 3 newborns. An umbilical artery pH of <7.10 was observed in 8 newborns.

In a randomized trial performed on inpatients, 419 women undergoing CR were assigned to a Foley balloon or Dilapan-S.¹⁶ The vaginal delivery rates were similar in the groups—76% for Foley and 81% for Dilapan-S. Maternal and neonatal adverse effects were similar between the two groups. Compared with Foley catheter, women assigned to Dilapan-S reported greater satisfaction with their CR experience, more sleep, and more ability to perform daily activities.

Misoprostol and dinoprostone

Both misoprostol and dinoprostone are effective for outpatient CR. However, a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that balloon CR, compared with prostaglandin CR, is probably associated with a lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation with concerning fetal heart rate changes.¹⁷ Because misoprostol and dinoprostone occasionally can cause uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes, many experts recommend CTG monitoring both before and after administration of misoprostol or dinoprostone for CR.

In a trial of outpatient versus inpatient vaginal PGE₂ CR, 425 women at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation were assigned randomly to outpatient or inpatient CR.¹⁸ All women had CTG monitoring for 20 minutes before and after vaginal placement of the PGE₂ gel. The PGE₂ dose was 2 mg for nulliparous and 1 mg for parous women. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient groups—22.3% and 22.9%, respectively. Among the women randomized to outpatient CR, 27 women (13%) could not be discharged home after administration of the vaginal PGE₂ because of frequent uterine contractions or an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern. In addition, 64 women (30%) in the outpatient group returned to the hospital before scheduled induction because of frequent contractions. Maternal and neonatal complications were similar in the two groups. The investigators concluded that, at the dose and route of prostaglandin utilized in this study, the resultant rates of abnormal fetal heart rate pattern and frequent contractions might reduce the clinical utility of outpatient vaginal prostaglandin CR.

Another study also reported a greater rate of uterine tachysystole with vaginal PGE₂ compared with a Foley catheter for CR (9% vs 0%).¹⁹ In a Cochrane systematic review of vaginal prostaglandin for CR, compared with placebo, vaginal prostaglandins were associated with a significantly greater rate of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (4.8% vs 1.0%).²⁰ Other studies also reported the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal prostaglandin.^21,22

Both oral and vaginal misoprostol have been utilized for outpatient CR. In one study, 87 women with singleton pregnancy at 40 to 42 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <6 were randomized to outpatient CR with oral misoprostol (100 µg) or placebo.²³ Following administration of the oral misoprostol, the women had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The treatment was repeated daily for up to 3 days if there was no change in the cervix. If labor occurred, the patient was admitted to the labor unit for oxytocin IOL. The times from first dose of misoprostol or placebo to delivery were 46 and 84 hours (P<.001), respectively.

In another study, 49 women ≥40 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <5 were randomly assigned to receive outpatient oral misoprostol 25 µg or 50 µg.²⁴ The dose could be repeated every 3 days over 9 days if ripening or labor had not been achieved. The women had CTG before administration of oral misoprostol. After the misoprostol dose, they had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 50 µg group were 83%, 13%, and 4% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 25 µg group were 58%, 26%, and 16% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The mean intervals from initiation of CR to delivery in the 25 µg and the 50 µg groups were 3.9 and 2.5 days, respectively. The investigators reported no maternal or newborn adverse events, although the study was not powered to detect infrequent events.

Many studies have reported on the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal misoprostol.^25-30 In one study, 77 women at 40 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score ≤8 were randomized to a single dose of vaginal misoprostol 25 µg or gentle cervical examination (control).²⁵ The women had 1 hour of CTG monitoring after the intervention. If they had regular contractions they were admitted to the birthing unit. If they had no regular contractions they were discharged home. For nulliparous women, the time from intervention to delivery in the misoprostol group was 4.9 days, and 8.1 days in the control group. For parous women, the times from intervention to delivery in the two groups were 3.8 and 6.9 days, respectively.

Continue to: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR...

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR

Outpatient CR should be limited to low-risk women with a singleton gestation, who have reliable access to transportation from home to the labor unit and have a clear understanding of the instructions for outpatient CR. Patient characteristics that may be utilized to offer office-based CR include:

• singleton pregnancy at 39 weeks’ and 0 days’ gestation through 40 weeks’ and 6 days’ gestation
• cephalic presentation
• Bishop score ≤6.

Women who should be excluded from outpatient CR include those with:

• contraindications to vaginal delivery
• fetal growth restriction
• abnormal umbilical artery Doppler results
• oligo- or polyhydramnios
• multiple gestation
• major fetal anomaly
• recent nonreactive fetal heart rate tracing
• maternal report of decreased fetal movement
• abnormal biophysical profile
• prior cesarean delivery
• recent vaginal bleeding
• gestational diabetes requiring medication treatment
• significant hypertension.

Practices should establish their own inclusion and exclusion criteria for ambulatory CR.

Safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women

Safety is a complex concept with experts often disagreeing on what level of safety is required to accept a new medical procedure. Establishing the safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women would require a very large cohort or randomized studies with at least a thousand participants. Only a few large studies focused on the safety of CR have been reported. Sciscione and colleagues reported a large observational study of inpatient transcervical Foley catheter for CR involving 1,905 women.³¹ They reported no adverse outcomes among term, singleton, uncomplicated pregnancies. They calculated that the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an adverse event was between 0.0% and 0.2%. In a meta-analysis of 26 studies including 5,563 women, the risk of chorioamnionitis during IOL was equivalent with pre-IOL Foley catheter CR (7.2%) or prostaglandin CR (7.2%) (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.66–1.38).³²

Two systematic reviews have reported that, compared with balloon CR, misoprostol CR is associated with an increased risk of uterine tachysystole.^33-34 In a large retrospective study, compared with inpatient CR, outpatient CR with dinoprostone vaginal insert was not associated with an increased risk of newborn admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or a low Apgar score at 5 minutes after birth.³⁵

Will you consider office-based CR in your obstetric practice?

As reviewed in this editorial, evolving data suggest that it is feasible to initiate CR in the office ambulatory setting prior to admission to the labor unit for additional CR or IOL. Many women prefer to complete CR at home after initiation in the office, rather than have CR in a labor unit or hospital setting.³⁶ The transcervical balloon catheter has the most published data supporting the feasibility of ambulatory CR. Compared with misoprostol, the transcervical balloon catheter is associated with a low rate of uterine tachysystole. It may be a preferred method for outpatient CR. If placement of a transcervical balloon catheter is challenging, for example when the patient has a tightly closed cervix, oral misoprostol ambulatory CR may be an option if CTG monitoring is available in the office.

During the COVID pandemic, many in-person office visits have transitioned to virtual visits with the patient in their home. Historically, most cases of CR have been performed on labor and delivery units. It may be time for your practice to consider office-based ambulatory CR for low-risk women planning an IOL. Office-based ambulatory CR is a win for labor nurses who generally prefer to manage laboring patients rather than patients undergoing prolonged in-hospital CR. Outpatient CR is also a win for low-risk patients who prefer to be at home rather than in a labor unit. ●

For women with a Bishop score ≤6, CR is an important first step in planned induction of labor (IOL). CR is believed to reduce the length of labor induction and increase the probability of a vaginal delivery. Historically, CR has been undertaken on a labor unit. However, with an increased rate of labor induction, the resources of the modern labor unit are incredibly stressed. Compounding the problem is the nursing shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in staff being unavailable as they recover from a respiratory infection or are quarantined after an exposure. The COVID-19 pandemic also has motivated many patients to avoid the hospital as much as possible.

Office-based ambulatory CR is an alternative to inpatient CR and has the potential to reduce the use of labor unit resources. When CR is initiated in the office, the patient either is sent home overnight to return to the labor unit for IOL in the morning or is sent home in the morning to return for IOL in the evening or at night. A secondary benefit of office- and home-based CR is that it may increase patient satisfaction with the process of CR. This editorial summarizes the literature supporting office-based ambulatory CR.

Mechanical methods of CR

Contemporary mechanical methods of CR include the transcervical insertion of a Foley catheter, Cook double-balloon CR catheter, Dilapan-S, or laminaria. There are many publications reporting the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with transcervical balloon catheters and very few publications reporting on the use of Dilapan-S or laminaria for ambulatory CR.

Foley catheter

Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of transcervical Foley catheter for ambulatory CR. Policiano and colleagues compared the effectiveness of ambulatory versus inpatient Foley catheter CR.¹ A total of 130 women with a Bishop score <6 at ≥41 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter (Covidian Dover Silicon coated latex Foley catheter 16 Fr/5.3 mm diameter). The Foley catheter bulb was distended with 40 mL of a sterile saline solution. The end of the Foley was taped to the patient’s inner thigh. Manual traction was gently applied to the catheter every 6 hours. If the catheter was extruded, the Bishop score was assessed. For a Bishop score <6, the patient was given additional inpatient misoprostol (25 µg vaginally every 4 hours for up to 5 doses). For a Bishop score ≥6, intravenous oxytocin IOL was initiated. At 24 hours if the Foley catheter was still in situ, it was removed. Women were excluded from the study for the following factors: noncephalic presentation, spontaneous labor, hydramnios, nonreassuring cardiotocography (CTG), multiple pregnancy, ruptured membranes, active vaginal bleeding, Streptococcus group B infection, and HIV infection. Prostaglandin CR was not used if the woman had a previous cesarean delivery. No prophylactic antibiotics were administered. After placement of the Foley catheter, reassuring CTG was documented prior to sending the patient home.

Outpatient, compared with inpatient, CR resulted in a mean reduction of 10 hours in the time from admission to delivery. The time from insertion of the Foley catheter to delivery in the outpatient group was 38.2 hours, and 44.9 hours for the inpatient group (P<.01). The cesarean delivery rates were similar in both groups—28% and 38%, respectively. Three cases of chorioamnionitis occurred in each group. These study results support the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with a transcervical Foley.

Ausbeck and colleagues randomly assigned 126 nulliparous women with a Bishop score <5, at a gestational age ranging from 39 weeks and 0 days through 41 weeks and 6 days, to outpatient overnight CR or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.² Breech presentation and multiple gestation pregnancies were excluded from the study. The investigators utilized a 16 French Foley catheter and filled the balloon with 30 mL of sterile water. The Foley was taped to the woman’s inner thigh on slight tension. After placement of the Foley catheter at least 20 minutes of CTG monitoring was performed. The women in the outpatient group were given the contact number for the labor unit and advised that they could take acetaminophen for pain. They were advised that they could stay at home if the Foley catheter was expelled. They were admitted to the labor unit at the time scheduled for their IOL.

The mean time from admission to delivery was reduced by 4.3 hours in the outpatient compared with the inpatient CR group (17.4 vs 21.7 hours; P<.01). In the outpatient CR group, 22% of the women were admitted to labor before the time of the scheduled IOL. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient CR groups (24% vs 33%, P = .32). In the outpatient and inpatient groups, chorioamnionitis was diagnosed in 22% and 13% (P = .16) of the women. The authors concluded that outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter reduced the time from admission to delivery.

Other research groups also have confirmed the feasibility of outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.^3-5

Placement of the Foley catheter can be performed digitally without direct visualization of the cervix or by direct visualization using a vaginal speculum. After placement of the speculum, the cervix is cleansed with a povidone-iodine solution and a sterile ring forceps is used to grasp the catheter and guide it through the cervical os. In one small study, self-reported pain was similar for both digital and direct visualization methods for placement of the balloon catheter.⁶ When using Foley catheter CR, filling the standard Foley catheter balloon with 60 mL of fluid, rather than 30 to 40 mL of fluid, is rarely associated with balloon rupture and may result in more effective CR.^6,7

Continue to: Double-balloon catheter...

The Cook double-balloon catheter for CR is meant to create pressure on both sides of the cervix, facilitating CR. Studies have reported that the Cook double-balloon catheter can be used for outpatient CR. In one study, 48 women with a low-risk pregnancy, at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score <7 were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient double-balloon CR.⁸ Both balloons were filled with 70 to 80 mL of sterile water. CTG monitoring was performed for 20 minutes before and after balloon placement. The women in the outpatient CR group were instructed to return to the labor unit the next day at 8 AM for IOL or earlier if they had regular uterine contractions, rupture of membranes, or vaginal bleeding. Seven percent of the women in the outpatient group returned to the labor unit before 8 AM. After removal of the balloon catheter, women in the outpatient and inpatient groups needed additional misoprostol CR in 12% and 13% of cases, respectively. Outcomes were similar in the two groups, but the study was not powered to identify small differences between the groups.

In another study of outpatient CR with the Cook double-balloon catheter, 695 women with a Bishop score <7, at ≥37 weeks’ gestation, were randomly assigned to outpatient CR with a double-balloon catheter or inpatient CR with dinoprostone (PGE₂) (2 mg dinoprostone vaginal gel [Prostin] or dinoprostone 10 mg controlled-release tape (Cervidil).⁹ Women assigned to dinoprostone CR had CTG monitoring prior to commencing PGE₂ CR and at least 30 min of CTG monitoring after insertion of the vaginal PGE₂. Women assigned to balloon CR were not admitted to the hospital. CTG was performed prior to insertion of the balloon. After insertion, the two balloons on the catheter were each filled with 80 mL of saline. After catheter insertion CTG monitoring was not routinely performed. The women in the double-balloon catheter group returned to the labor unit 12 hours after insertion to initiate IOL. The primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity and mortality, including admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), intubation, cardiac compressions, acidemia, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth, or death.

There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary outcome in the catheter versus the PGE₂ group (18.6% and 25.8%; P = .07). Admission to the NICU occurred at rates of 12.6% and 15.5% in the catheter and PGE₂ groups. Umbilical cord arterial pH <7.00 at birth occurred at a rate of 3.5% in the catheter group and 9.2% in the PGE₂ group. The cesarean delivery rates in the catheter and PGE groups were 32.6% and 25.8%, respectively (P = .24). The investigators concluded that outpatient CR using a double-balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women.

Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported that outcomes were similar when using the Foley or double-balloon catheter for CR.^10,11 The Cook double-balloon CR kit includes a stylet, which can facilitate passing the catheter through the cervix.

Continue to: Dilapan-S and laminaria...

There are many published studies using Dilapan-S and laminaria for cervical preparation prior to uterine evacuation.¹² There are few published studies using Dilapan-S or laminaria for CR prior to IOL. In a pilot study, 21 patients were randomly assigned to outpatient versus inpatient Dilapan-S for CR the night prior to scheduled oxytocin IOL.¹³ The length of time from initiation of oxytocin to delivery in the outpatient and inpatient groups was similar (11 vs 14 hours, respectively). The outpatient compared with the inpatient group had a shorter length of hospitalization until delivery (51 vs 70 hours).

In other studies of Dilapan-S for CR, the patients remained in the hospital once the dilators were inserted. In one small trial, 41 women were randomized to CR with Dilapan-S or laminaria. As many dilators as could be comfortably tolerated by the patient were inserted.¹⁴ The mean numbers of Dilapan-S and laminaria dilators inserted were 4.3 and 9.7, respectively. The morning after the insertion of the dilators, oxytocin IOL was initiated. The times from initiation of oxytocin to delivery for the women in the Dilapan-S and laminaria groups were 11.6 and 15.5 hours, respectively.

An observational study reported on outcomes with Dilapan-S for CR on inpatients.¹⁵ In the study 444 women scheduled for IOL at 37 to 40 weeks’ gestation, with a mean baseline Bishop score of 2.9, had Dilapan-S placed for approximately 15 hours prior to oxytocin IOL. The mean number of Dilapan-S dilators that were inserted was 3.8. The study protocol prohibited placing more than 5 cervical dilator devices. The mean Bishop score after removal of the dilators was 6.5. The most common adverse effects of Dilapan-S CR were bleeding (2.7%) and pain (0.2%). The cesarean delivery rate in the cohort was 30.1%. An Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes was recorded for 3 newborns. An umbilical artery pH of <7.10 was observed in 8 newborns.

In a randomized trial performed on inpatients, 419 women undergoing CR were assigned to a Foley balloon or Dilapan-S.¹⁶ The vaginal delivery rates were similar in the groups—76% for Foley and 81% for Dilapan-S. Maternal and neonatal adverse effects were similar between the two groups. Compared with Foley catheter, women assigned to Dilapan-S reported greater satisfaction with their CR experience, more sleep, and more ability to perform daily activities.

Misoprostol and dinoprostone

Both misoprostol and dinoprostone are effective for outpatient CR. However, a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that balloon CR, compared with prostaglandin CR, is probably associated with a lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation with concerning fetal heart rate changes.¹⁷ Because misoprostol and dinoprostone occasionally can cause uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes, many experts recommend CTG monitoring both before and after administration of misoprostol or dinoprostone for CR.

In a trial of outpatient versus inpatient vaginal PGE₂ CR, 425 women at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation were assigned randomly to outpatient or inpatient CR.¹⁸ All women had CTG monitoring for 20 minutes before and after vaginal placement of the PGE₂ gel. The PGE₂ dose was 2 mg for nulliparous and 1 mg for parous women. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient groups—22.3% and 22.9%, respectively. Among the women randomized to outpatient CR, 27 women (13%) could not be discharged home after administration of the vaginal PGE₂ because of frequent uterine contractions or an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern. In addition, 64 women (30%) in the outpatient group returned to the hospital before scheduled induction because of frequent contractions. Maternal and neonatal complications were similar in the two groups. The investigators concluded that, at the dose and route of prostaglandin utilized in this study, the resultant rates of abnormal fetal heart rate pattern and frequent contractions might reduce the clinical utility of outpatient vaginal prostaglandin CR.

Another study also reported a greater rate of uterine tachysystole with vaginal PGE₂ compared with a Foley catheter for CR (9% vs 0%).¹⁹ In a Cochrane systematic review of vaginal prostaglandin for CR, compared with placebo, vaginal prostaglandins were associated with a significantly greater rate of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (4.8% vs 1.0%).²⁰ Other studies also reported the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal prostaglandin.^21,22

Both oral and vaginal misoprostol have been utilized for outpatient CR. In one study, 87 women with singleton pregnancy at 40 to 42 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <6 were randomized to outpatient CR with oral misoprostol (100 µg) or placebo.²³ Following administration of the oral misoprostol, the women had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The treatment was repeated daily for up to 3 days if there was no change in the cervix. If labor occurred, the patient was admitted to the labor unit for oxytocin IOL. The times from first dose of misoprostol or placebo to delivery were 46 and 84 hours (P<.001), respectively.

In another study, 49 women ≥40 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <5 were randomly assigned to receive outpatient oral misoprostol 25 µg or 50 µg.²⁴ The dose could be repeated every 3 days over 9 days if ripening or labor had not been achieved. The women had CTG before administration of oral misoprostol. After the misoprostol dose, they had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 50 µg group were 83%, 13%, and 4% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 25 µg group were 58%, 26%, and 16% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The mean intervals from initiation of CR to delivery in the 25 µg and the 50 µg groups were 3.9 and 2.5 days, respectively. The investigators reported no maternal or newborn adverse events, although the study was not powered to detect infrequent events.

Many studies have reported on the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal misoprostol.^25-30 In one study, 77 women at 40 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score ≤8 were randomized to a single dose of vaginal misoprostol 25 µg or gentle cervical examination (control).²⁵ The women had 1 hour of CTG monitoring after the intervention. If they had regular contractions they were admitted to the birthing unit. If they had no regular contractions they were discharged home. For nulliparous women, the time from intervention to delivery in the misoprostol group was 4.9 days, and 8.1 days in the control group. For parous women, the times from intervention to delivery in the two groups were 3.8 and 6.9 days, respectively.

Continue to: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR...

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR

Outpatient CR should be limited to low-risk women with a singleton gestation, who have reliable access to transportation from home to the labor unit and have a clear understanding of the instructions for outpatient CR. Patient characteristics that may be utilized to offer office-based CR include:

• singleton pregnancy at 39 weeks’ and 0 days’ gestation through 40 weeks’ and 6 days’ gestation
• cephalic presentation
• Bishop score ≤6.

Women who should be excluded from outpatient CR include those with:

• contraindications to vaginal delivery
• fetal growth restriction
• abnormal umbilical artery Doppler results
• oligo- or polyhydramnios
• multiple gestation
• major fetal anomaly
• recent nonreactive fetal heart rate tracing
• maternal report of decreased fetal movement
• abnormal biophysical profile
• prior cesarean delivery
• recent vaginal bleeding
• gestational diabetes requiring medication treatment
• significant hypertension.

Practices should establish their own inclusion and exclusion criteria for ambulatory CR.

Safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women

Safety is a complex concept with experts often disagreeing on what level of safety is required to accept a new medical procedure. Establishing the safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women would require a very large cohort or randomized studies with at least a thousand participants. Only a few large studies focused on the safety of CR have been reported. Sciscione and colleagues reported a large observational study of inpatient transcervical Foley catheter for CR involving 1,905 women.³¹ They reported no adverse outcomes among term, singleton, uncomplicated pregnancies. They calculated that the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an adverse event was between 0.0% and 0.2%. In a meta-analysis of 26 studies including 5,563 women, the risk of chorioamnionitis during IOL was equivalent with pre-IOL Foley catheter CR (7.2%) or prostaglandin CR (7.2%) (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.66–1.38).³²

Two systematic reviews have reported that, compared with balloon CR, misoprostol CR is associated with an increased risk of uterine tachysystole.^33-34 In a large retrospective study, compared with inpatient CR, outpatient CR with dinoprostone vaginal insert was not associated with an increased risk of newborn admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or a low Apgar score at 5 minutes after birth.³⁵

Will you consider office-based CR in your obstetric practice?

As reviewed in this editorial, evolving data suggest that it is feasible to initiate CR in the office ambulatory setting prior to admission to the labor unit for additional CR or IOL. Many women prefer to complete CR at home after initiation in the office, rather than have CR in a labor unit or hospital setting.³⁶ The transcervical balloon catheter has the most published data supporting the feasibility of ambulatory CR. Compared with misoprostol, the transcervical balloon catheter is associated with a low rate of uterine tachysystole. It may be a preferred method for outpatient CR. If placement of a transcervical balloon catheter is challenging, for example when the patient has a tightly closed cervix, oral misoprostol ambulatory CR may be an option if CTG monitoring is available in the office.

During the COVID pandemic, many in-person office visits have transitioned to virtual visits with the patient in their home. Historically, most cases of CR have been performed on labor and delivery units. It may be time for your practice to consider office-based ambulatory CR for low-risk women planning an IOL. Office-based ambulatory CR is a win for labor nurses who generally prefer to manage laboring patients rather than patients undergoing prolonged in-hospital CR. Outpatient CR is also a win for low-risk patients who prefer to be at home rather than in a labor unit. ●

For women with a Bishop score ≤6, CR is an important first step in planned induction of labor (IOL). CR is believed to reduce the length of labor induction and increase the probability of a vaginal delivery. Historically, CR has been undertaken on a labor unit. However, with an increased rate of labor induction, the resources of the modern labor unit are incredibly stressed. Compounding the problem is the nursing shortage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in staff being unavailable as they recover from a respiratory infection or are quarantined after an exposure. The COVID-19 pandemic also has motivated many patients to avoid the hospital as much as possible.

Office-based ambulatory CR is an alternative to inpatient CR and has the potential to reduce the use of labor unit resources. When CR is initiated in the office, the patient either is sent home overnight to return to the labor unit for IOL in the morning or is sent home in the morning to return for IOL in the evening or at night. A secondary benefit of office- and home-based CR is that it may increase patient satisfaction with the process of CR. This editorial summarizes the literature supporting office-based ambulatory CR.

Mechanical methods of CR

Contemporary mechanical methods of CR include the transcervical insertion of a Foley catheter, Cook double-balloon CR catheter, Dilapan-S, or laminaria. There are many publications reporting the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with transcervical balloon catheters and very few publications reporting on the use of Dilapan-S or laminaria for ambulatory CR.

Foley catheter

Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of transcervical Foley catheter for ambulatory CR. Policiano and colleagues compared the effectiveness of ambulatory versus inpatient Foley catheter CR.¹ A total of 130 women with a Bishop score <6 at ≥41 weeks’ gestation were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter (Covidian Dover Silicon coated latex Foley catheter 16 Fr/5.3 mm diameter). The Foley catheter bulb was distended with 40 mL of a sterile saline solution. The end of the Foley was taped to the patient’s inner thigh. Manual traction was gently applied to the catheter every 6 hours. If the catheter was extruded, the Bishop score was assessed. For a Bishop score <6, the patient was given additional inpatient misoprostol (25 µg vaginally every 4 hours for up to 5 doses). For a Bishop score ≥6, intravenous oxytocin IOL was initiated. At 24 hours if the Foley catheter was still in situ, it was removed. Women were excluded from the study for the following factors: noncephalic presentation, spontaneous labor, hydramnios, nonreassuring cardiotocography (CTG), multiple pregnancy, ruptured membranes, active vaginal bleeding, Streptococcus group B infection, and HIV infection. Prostaglandin CR was not used if the woman had a previous cesarean delivery. No prophylactic antibiotics were administered. After placement of the Foley catheter, reassuring CTG was documented prior to sending the patient home.

Outpatient, compared with inpatient, CR resulted in a mean reduction of 10 hours in the time from admission to delivery. The time from insertion of the Foley catheter to delivery in the outpatient group was 38.2 hours, and 44.9 hours for the inpatient group (P<.01). The cesarean delivery rates were similar in both groups—28% and 38%, respectively. Three cases of chorioamnionitis occurred in each group. These study results support the feasibility of office-based ambulatory CR with a transcervical Foley.

Ausbeck and colleagues randomly assigned 126 nulliparous women with a Bishop score <5, at a gestational age ranging from 39 weeks and 0 days through 41 weeks and 6 days, to outpatient overnight CR or inpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.² Breech presentation and multiple gestation pregnancies were excluded from the study. The investigators utilized a 16 French Foley catheter and filled the balloon with 30 mL of sterile water. The Foley was taped to the woman’s inner thigh on slight tension. After placement of the Foley catheter at least 20 minutes of CTG monitoring was performed. The women in the outpatient group were given the contact number for the labor unit and advised that they could take acetaminophen for pain. They were advised that they could stay at home if the Foley catheter was expelled. They were admitted to the labor unit at the time scheduled for their IOL.

The mean time from admission to delivery was reduced by 4.3 hours in the outpatient compared with the inpatient CR group (17.4 vs 21.7 hours; P<.01). In the outpatient CR group, 22% of the women were admitted to labor before the time of the scheduled IOL. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient CR groups (24% vs 33%, P = .32). In the outpatient and inpatient groups, chorioamnionitis was diagnosed in 22% and 13% (P = .16) of the women. The authors concluded that outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter reduced the time from admission to delivery.

Other research groups also have confirmed the feasibility of outpatient CR with a transcervical Foley catheter.^3-5

Placement of the Foley catheter can be performed digitally without direct visualization of the cervix or by direct visualization using a vaginal speculum. After placement of the speculum, the cervix is cleansed with a povidone-iodine solution and a sterile ring forceps is used to grasp the catheter and guide it through the cervical os. In one small study, self-reported pain was similar for both digital and direct visualization methods for placement of the balloon catheter.⁶ When using Foley catheter CR, filling the standard Foley catheter balloon with 60 mL of fluid, rather than 30 to 40 mL of fluid, is rarely associated with balloon rupture and may result in more effective CR.^6,7

Continue to: Double-balloon catheter...

The Cook double-balloon catheter for CR is meant to create pressure on both sides of the cervix, facilitating CR. Studies have reported that the Cook double-balloon catheter can be used for outpatient CR. In one study, 48 women with a low-risk pregnancy, at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score <7 were randomly assigned to outpatient or inpatient double-balloon CR.⁸ Both balloons were filled with 70 to 80 mL of sterile water. CTG monitoring was performed for 20 minutes before and after balloon placement. The women in the outpatient CR group were instructed to return to the labor unit the next day at 8 AM for IOL or earlier if they had regular uterine contractions, rupture of membranes, or vaginal bleeding. Seven percent of the women in the outpatient group returned to the labor unit before 8 AM. After removal of the balloon catheter, women in the outpatient and inpatient groups needed additional misoprostol CR in 12% and 13% of cases, respectively. Outcomes were similar in the two groups, but the study was not powered to identify small differences between the groups.

In another study of outpatient CR with the Cook double-balloon catheter, 695 women with a Bishop score <7, at ≥37 weeks’ gestation, were randomly assigned to outpatient CR with a double-balloon catheter or inpatient CR with dinoprostone (PGE₂) (2 mg dinoprostone vaginal gel [Prostin] or dinoprostone 10 mg controlled-release tape (Cervidil).⁹ Women assigned to dinoprostone CR had CTG monitoring prior to commencing PGE₂ CR and at least 30 min of CTG monitoring after insertion of the vaginal PGE₂. Women assigned to balloon CR were not admitted to the hospital. CTG was performed prior to insertion of the balloon. After insertion, the two balloons on the catheter were each filled with 80 mL of saline. After catheter insertion CTG monitoring was not routinely performed. The women in the double-balloon catheter group returned to the labor unit 12 hours after insertion to initiate IOL. The primary outcome was composite neonatal morbidity and mortality, including admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), intubation, cardiac compressions, acidemia, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth, or death.

There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary outcome in the catheter versus the PGE₂ group (18.6% and 25.8%; P = .07). Admission to the NICU occurred at rates of 12.6% and 15.5% in the catheter and PGE₂ groups. Umbilical cord arterial pH <7.00 at birth occurred at a rate of 3.5% in the catheter group and 9.2% in the PGE₂ group. The cesarean delivery rates in the catheter and PGE groups were 32.6% and 25.8%, respectively (P = .24). The investigators concluded that outpatient CR using a double-balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women.

Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported that outcomes were similar when using the Foley or double-balloon catheter for CR.^10,11 The Cook double-balloon CR kit includes a stylet, which can facilitate passing the catheter through the cervix.

Continue to: Dilapan-S and laminaria...

There are many published studies using Dilapan-S and laminaria for cervical preparation prior to uterine evacuation.¹² There are few published studies using Dilapan-S or laminaria for CR prior to IOL. In a pilot study, 21 patients were randomly assigned to outpatient versus inpatient Dilapan-S for CR the night prior to scheduled oxytocin IOL.¹³ The length of time from initiation of oxytocin to delivery in the outpatient and inpatient groups was similar (11 vs 14 hours, respectively). The outpatient compared with the inpatient group had a shorter length of hospitalization until delivery (51 vs 70 hours).

In other studies of Dilapan-S for CR, the patients remained in the hospital once the dilators were inserted. In one small trial, 41 women were randomized to CR with Dilapan-S or laminaria. As many dilators as could be comfortably tolerated by the patient were inserted.¹⁴ The mean numbers of Dilapan-S and laminaria dilators inserted were 4.3 and 9.7, respectively. The morning after the insertion of the dilators, oxytocin IOL was initiated. The times from initiation of oxytocin to delivery for the women in the Dilapan-S and laminaria groups were 11.6 and 15.5 hours, respectively.

An observational study reported on outcomes with Dilapan-S for CR on inpatients.¹⁵ In the study 444 women scheduled for IOL at 37 to 40 weeks’ gestation, with a mean baseline Bishop score of 2.9, had Dilapan-S placed for approximately 15 hours prior to oxytocin IOL. The mean number of Dilapan-S dilators that were inserted was 3.8. The study protocol prohibited placing more than 5 cervical dilator devices. The mean Bishop score after removal of the dilators was 6.5. The most common adverse effects of Dilapan-S CR were bleeding (2.7%) and pain (0.2%). The cesarean delivery rate in the cohort was 30.1%. An Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes was recorded for 3 newborns. An umbilical artery pH of <7.10 was observed in 8 newborns.

In a randomized trial performed on inpatients, 419 women undergoing CR were assigned to a Foley balloon or Dilapan-S.¹⁶ The vaginal delivery rates were similar in the groups—76% for Foley and 81% for Dilapan-S. Maternal and neonatal adverse effects were similar between the two groups. Compared with Foley catheter, women assigned to Dilapan-S reported greater satisfaction with their CR experience, more sleep, and more ability to perform daily activities.

Misoprostol and dinoprostone

Both misoprostol and dinoprostone are effective for outpatient CR. However, a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that balloon CR, compared with prostaglandin CR, is probably associated with a lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation with concerning fetal heart rate changes.¹⁷ Because misoprostol and dinoprostone occasionally can cause uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes, many experts recommend CTG monitoring both before and after administration of misoprostol or dinoprostone for CR.

In a trial of outpatient versus inpatient vaginal PGE₂ CR, 425 women at 37 to 42 weeks’ gestation were assigned randomly to outpatient or inpatient CR.¹⁸ All women had CTG monitoring for 20 minutes before and after vaginal placement of the PGE₂ gel. The PGE₂ dose was 2 mg for nulliparous and 1 mg for parous women. The cesarean delivery rates were similar in the outpatient and inpatient groups—22.3% and 22.9%, respectively. Among the women randomized to outpatient CR, 27 women (13%) could not be discharged home after administration of the vaginal PGE₂ because of frequent uterine contractions or an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern. In addition, 64 women (30%) in the outpatient group returned to the hospital before scheduled induction because of frequent contractions. Maternal and neonatal complications were similar in the two groups. The investigators concluded that, at the dose and route of prostaglandin utilized in this study, the resultant rates of abnormal fetal heart rate pattern and frequent contractions might reduce the clinical utility of outpatient vaginal prostaglandin CR.

Another study also reported a greater rate of uterine tachysystole with vaginal PGE₂ compared with a Foley catheter for CR (9% vs 0%).¹⁹ In a Cochrane systematic review of vaginal prostaglandin for CR, compared with placebo, vaginal prostaglandins were associated with a significantly greater rate of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (4.8% vs 1.0%).²⁰ Other studies also reported the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal prostaglandin.^21,22

Both oral and vaginal misoprostol have been utilized for outpatient CR. In one study, 87 women with singleton pregnancy at 40 to 42 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <6 were randomized to outpatient CR with oral misoprostol (100 µg) or placebo.²³ Following administration of the oral misoprostol, the women had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The treatment was repeated daily for up to 3 days if there was no change in the cervix. If labor occurred, the patient was admitted to the labor unit for oxytocin IOL. The times from first dose of misoprostol or placebo to delivery were 46 and 84 hours (P<.001), respectively.

In another study, 49 women ≥40 weeks’ gestation with a Bishop score <5 were randomly assigned to receive outpatient oral misoprostol 25 µg or 50 µg.²⁴ The dose could be repeated every 3 days over 9 days if ripening or labor had not been achieved. The women had CTG before administration of oral misoprostol. After the misoprostol dose, they had 2 hours of CTG monitoring. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 50 µg group were 83%, 13%, and 4% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The number of doses received by the women assigned to the 25 µg group were 58%, 26%, and 16% for 1, 2, and 3 doses, respectively. The mean intervals from initiation of CR to delivery in the 25 µg and the 50 µg groups were 3.9 and 2.5 days, respectively. The investigators reported no maternal or newborn adverse events, although the study was not powered to detect infrequent events.

Many studies have reported on the feasibility of outpatient CR with vaginal misoprostol.^25-30 In one study, 77 women at 40 weeks’ gestation and a Bishop score ≤8 were randomized to a single dose of vaginal misoprostol 25 µg or gentle cervical examination (control).²⁵ The women had 1 hour of CTG monitoring after the intervention. If they had regular contractions they were admitted to the birthing unit. If they had no regular contractions they were discharged home. For nulliparous women, the time from intervention to delivery in the misoprostol group was 4.9 days, and 8.1 days in the control group. For parous women, the times from intervention to delivery in the two groups were 3.8 and 6.9 days, respectively.

Continue to: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR...

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for outpatient CR

Outpatient CR should be limited to low-risk women with a singleton gestation, who have reliable access to transportation from home to the labor unit and have a clear understanding of the instructions for outpatient CR. Patient characteristics that may be utilized to offer office-based CR include:

• singleton pregnancy at 39 weeks’ and 0 days’ gestation through 40 weeks’ and 6 days’ gestation
• cephalic presentation
• Bishop score ≤6.

Women who should be excluded from outpatient CR include those with:

• contraindications to vaginal delivery
• fetal growth restriction
• abnormal umbilical artery Doppler results
• oligo- or polyhydramnios
• multiple gestation
• major fetal anomaly
• recent nonreactive fetal heart rate tracing
• maternal report of decreased fetal movement
• abnormal biophysical profile
• prior cesarean delivery
• recent vaginal bleeding
• gestational diabetes requiring medication treatment
• significant hypertension.

Practices should establish their own inclusion and exclusion criteria for ambulatory CR.

Safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women

Safety is a complex concept with experts often disagreeing on what level of safety is required to accept a new medical procedure. Establishing the safety of office-based ambulatory CR among low-risk women would require a very large cohort or randomized studies with at least a thousand participants. Only a few large studies focused on the safety of CR have been reported. Sciscione and colleagues reported a large observational study of inpatient transcervical Foley catheter for CR involving 1,905 women.³¹ They reported no adverse outcomes among term, singleton, uncomplicated pregnancies. They calculated that the 95% confidence interval (CI) for an adverse event was between 0.0% and 0.2%. In a meta-analysis of 26 studies including 5,563 women, the risk of chorioamnionitis during IOL was equivalent with pre-IOL Foley catheter CR (7.2%) or prostaglandin CR (7.2%) (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.66–1.38).³²

Two systematic reviews have reported that, compared with balloon CR, misoprostol CR is associated with an increased risk of uterine tachysystole.^33-34 In a large retrospective study, compared with inpatient CR, outpatient CR with dinoprostone vaginal insert was not associated with an increased risk of newborn admission to the neonatal intensive care unit or a low Apgar score at 5 minutes after birth.³⁵

Will you consider office-based CR in your obstetric practice?

As reviewed in this editorial, evolving data suggest that it is feasible to initiate CR in the office ambulatory setting prior to admission to the labor unit for additional CR or IOL. Many women prefer to complete CR at home after initiation in the office, rather than have CR in a labor unit or hospital setting.³⁶ The transcervical balloon catheter has the most published data supporting the feasibility of ambulatory CR. Compared with misoprostol, the transcervical balloon catheter is associated with a low rate of uterine tachysystole. It may be a preferred method for outpatient CR. If placement of a transcervical balloon catheter is challenging, for example when the patient has a tightly closed cervix, oral misoprostol ambulatory CR may be an option if CTG monitoring is available in the office.

During the COVID pandemic, many in-person office visits have transitioned to virtual visits with the patient in their home. Historically, most cases of CR have been performed on labor and delivery units. It may be time for your practice to consider office-based ambulatory CR for low-risk women planning an IOL. Office-based ambulatory CR is a win for labor nurses who generally prefer to manage laboring patients rather than patients undergoing prolonged in-hospital CR. Outpatient CR is also a win for low-risk patients who prefer to be at home rather than in a labor unit. ●

For millennia, serious psychiatric brain disorders (aka mental illnesses, melancholia, madness, insanity) were written off as incurable, permanent afflictions. It’s no wonder that they were engulfed with the stigma of hopelessness.

But then came the era of serendipitous discoveries in the mid-20th century, with the felicitous arrival of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and lithium. The dogma of untreatability was shattered, but in its wake, the notion of treatment resistance emerged, and promptly became the bane of psychiatric clinicians and the practice of psychopharmacology.

Many patients with mood and psychotic disorders responded to the medications that were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s, but some either derived partial benefit or did not improve at all. These partial or poor responders were labeled “treatment-resistant,” and caring for them became a major challenge for psychiatric physicians that continues to this day. However, rapid advances in understanding the many etiologies and subtypes of the heterogeneous mood and psychotic disorders are invalidating the notion of treatment resistance, showing it is a fallacy and a misnomer. Let’s examine why.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD)

Psychiatric clinics and hospitals are clogged with patients who do not respond to ≥2 evidence-based antidepressants and carry the disparaging label of “TRD.” But a patient manifesting what appears to be major depressive disorder (MDD) may actually have one of several types of depression that are unlikely to respond to an antidepressant, including:

• iatrogenic depression due to a prescription medication
• depression secondary to recreational drug use
• depressive symptoms secondary to a general medical condition
• bipolar depression.

Thus, a significant proportion of patients diagnosed with MDD are labeled TRD because they do not respond to standard antidepressants, when in fact they have been misdiagnosed and need a different treatment.

Even when the diagnosis of MDD is accurate, psychiatric neuroscience advances have informed us that MDD is a heterogeneous syndrome with multiple “biotypes” that share a similar phenotype.^1,2 In the past, TRD has been defined as a failure to respond to ≥2 adequate trials (8 to 12 weeks at a maximum tolerated dose) of antidepressants from different classes (such as tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors). For decades, patients with TRD have been referred to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and have experienced an excellent response rate. So TRD is in fact an artificial concept and term, applied to a subtype of MDD that does not respond to standard antidepressants, but often responds very well to neurostimulation (ECT and transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]).

When an antidepressant is approved by the FDA based on “successful” placebo-controlled double-blind trials, there is always a subset of patients who do not respond. However, the success of a controlled clinical trial is based on a decline in overall mean depression rating scale score in the antidepressant group compared with the placebo group. Not a single antidepressant has ever exerted full efficacy in 100% of patients who received it in an FDA trial because the sample is always a heterogeneous mix of patients with various depression biotypes who meet the DSM clinical diagnosis of MDD. Most often, only approximately 50% do, which is enough to be statistically significantly better than the roughly 30% response rate in the placebo group. It is impossible for a heterogeneous syndrome comprised of biologically different “diseases” to respond to any single medication! Patients who do not respond to an antidepressant medication that works in other patients represent a different subtype of depression that is not TRD. Biotypes of the depression syndrome have different neurochemical underpinnings and may respond to different mechanisms of therapeutic action, yet to be discovered.

Continue to: A very common...

A very common clinical mistake occurs when patients with bipolar depression are misdiagnosed as having MDD because most of them experience depression as their initial mood episode. These patients often end up being classified as having TRD because bipolar depression very frequently fails to respond to several of the antidepressants that are FDA-approved for MDD. When these patients are correctly diagnosed, many will respond to one of the medications specifically approved for bipolar depression that were launched over the past 15 years (quetiapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine). However, bipolar disorder is also a heterogeneous spectrum, and some patients with bipolar depression may fail to respond to any of these 3 medications and are promptly regarded as TRD. Such patients often respond to neuromodulation (TMS, ECT, or vagus nerve stimulation [VNS]), indicating that they may have a different type of bipolar depression, such as bipolar type II.

A more recent example of the falsehood of TRD as a spurious diagnosis is the dramatic and rapid response of patients who are chronically depressed (both those with MDD and those with bipolar depression) to ketamine infusions.^3,4 Responders to ketamine, a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, prove that nonresponders to monoamine reuptake inhibitors must not be falsely labeled as having TRD. They have a different subtype within the depression syndrome that is mediated by glutamatergic pathways, instead of monoamines such as serotonin, norepinephrine, or dopamine. In addition, unlike monoaminergic antidepressants, NMDA antagonists rapidly reverse suicidal urges, above and beyond rapidly reversing chronic, so-called TRD.

In the same vein, numerous reports have shown that buprenorphine has significant efficacy in TRD (and suicide urges, as does ketamine), which implicates opioid pathways as mediating some subtypes of TRD.⁵ The monoamine model of depression, which dominated the field and dragged on for half a century, has distracted psychiatric researchers from exploring and recognizing the multiple neurochemical and neuroplastic pathways of the depression syndrome, thus falsely assuming that depression is a monolithic disorder that responds to elevating the activity of brain monoamines. This major blind spot led to the ersatz concept of TRD.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS)

Since the discovery of chlorpromazine and other antipsychotics in the 1950s, it became apparent that a subset of patients with schizophrenia do not respond to medications that block dopamine D2 receptors. Partial responders were labeled as having TRS, and complete nonresponse was called refractory schizophrenia. Many patients with severe and persistent delusions and hallucinations were permanently hospitalized, and unable to live in the community like those who responded to dopamine antagonism.

In the late 1980s, the discovery that clozapine has significant efficacy in TRS and refractory schizophrenia provided the first insight that TRS and refractory schizophrenia represent different neuro­biologic subtypes of schizophrenia.^6,7 The extensive heterogeneity of schizophrenia (with hundreds of genetic and nongenetic etiologies) is now widely accepted.⁸ Patients with schizophrenia who do not respond to dopamine receptor antagonism should not be labeled TRS, because they can respond to a different antipsychotic agent, such as clozapine, which is believed to exert its efficacy via glutamate pathways.

Continue to: But what about the 50%...

But what about the 50% of patients with TRS or refractory schizophrenia who do not respond to clozapine?⁹ They do not have TRS, either, but represent different schizophrenia biotypes that may respond to other medications with different mechanisms of action, such as lamotrigine,¹⁰ which is a glutamate modulator; pimavanserin,¹¹ which is an inverse agonist of the serotonin 5HT-2A receptor; allopurinol,^12,13 an adenosine modulator; or estrogen,¹⁴ a neurosteroid. Future research will continue to unravel the many biotypes of the highly heterogeneous schizophrenia syndrome that are “nondopaminergic” and do not respond to the standard class of dopamine antagonists (previously called neuroleptics and now known as antipsychotics).¹⁵ Future treatments for schizophrenia may depart from modulating various neurotransmitter receptors to targeting entirely different neurobiologic processes, such as correcting mitochondria pathology, inhibiting microglia activation, repairing white matter, reversing apoptosis pathways, inducing neuroplasticity, arresting oxidative stress and inflammation, and other neuroprotective mechanisms.

The rapid growth of biomarkers in psychiatry¹⁶ will usher in an era of precision psychiatry¹⁷ that will eliminate the term “treatment resistance.” Our psychiatric practice will then benefit from “canceling” this demoralizing and clinically unjustified term that has needlessly fostered therapeutic nihilism among psychiatric physicians.

For millennia, serious psychiatric brain disorders (aka mental illnesses, melancholia, madness, insanity) were written off as incurable, permanent afflictions. It’s no wonder that they were engulfed with the stigma of hopelessness.

But then came the era of serendipitous discoveries in the mid-20th century, with the felicitous arrival of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and lithium. The dogma of untreatability was shattered, but in its wake, the notion of treatment resistance emerged, and promptly became the bane of psychiatric clinicians and the practice of psychopharmacology.

Many patients with mood and psychotic disorders responded to the medications that were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s, but some either derived partial benefit or did not improve at all. These partial or poor responders were labeled “treatment-resistant,” and caring for them became a major challenge for psychiatric physicians that continues to this day. However, rapid advances in understanding the many etiologies and subtypes of the heterogeneous mood and psychotic disorders are invalidating the notion of treatment resistance, showing it is a fallacy and a misnomer. Let’s examine why.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD)

Psychiatric clinics and hospitals are clogged with patients who do not respond to ≥2 evidence-based antidepressants and carry the disparaging label of “TRD.” But a patient manifesting what appears to be major depressive disorder (MDD) may actually have one of several types of depression that are unlikely to respond to an antidepressant, including:

• iatrogenic depression due to a prescription medication
• depression secondary to recreational drug use
• depressive symptoms secondary to a general medical condition
• bipolar depression.

Thus, a significant proportion of patients diagnosed with MDD are labeled TRD because they do not respond to standard antidepressants, when in fact they have been misdiagnosed and need a different treatment.

Even when the diagnosis of MDD is accurate, psychiatric neuroscience advances have informed us that MDD is a heterogeneous syndrome with multiple “biotypes” that share a similar phenotype.^1,2 In the past, TRD has been defined as a failure to respond to ≥2 adequate trials (8 to 12 weeks at a maximum tolerated dose) of antidepressants from different classes (such as tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors). For decades, patients with TRD have been referred to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and have experienced an excellent response rate. So TRD is in fact an artificial concept and term, applied to a subtype of MDD that does not respond to standard antidepressants, but often responds very well to neurostimulation (ECT and transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]).

When an antidepressant is approved by the FDA based on “successful” placebo-controlled double-blind trials, there is always a subset of patients who do not respond. However, the success of a controlled clinical trial is based on a decline in overall mean depression rating scale score in the antidepressant group compared with the placebo group. Not a single antidepressant has ever exerted full efficacy in 100% of patients who received it in an FDA trial because the sample is always a heterogeneous mix of patients with various depression biotypes who meet the DSM clinical diagnosis of MDD. Most often, only approximately 50% do, which is enough to be statistically significantly better than the roughly 30% response rate in the placebo group. It is impossible for a heterogeneous syndrome comprised of biologically different “diseases” to respond to any single medication! Patients who do not respond to an antidepressant medication that works in other patients represent a different subtype of depression that is not TRD. Biotypes of the depression syndrome have different neurochemical underpinnings and may respond to different mechanisms of therapeutic action, yet to be discovered.

Continue to: A very common...

A very common clinical mistake occurs when patients with bipolar depression are misdiagnosed as having MDD because most of them experience depression as their initial mood episode. These patients often end up being classified as having TRD because bipolar depression very frequently fails to respond to several of the antidepressants that are FDA-approved for MDD. When these patients are correctly diagnosed, many will respond to one of the medications specifically approved for bipolar depression that were launched over the past 15 years (quetiapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine). However, bipolar disorder is also a heterogeneous spectrum, and some patients with bipolar depression may fail to respond to any of these 3 medications and are promptly regarded as TRD. Such patients often respond to neuromodulation (TMS, ECT, or vagus nerve stimulation [VNS]), indicating that they may have a different type of bipolar depression, such as bipolar type II.

A more recent example of the falsehood of TRD as a spurious diagnosis is the dramatic and rapid response of patients who are chronically depressed (both those with MDD and those with bipolar depression) to ketamine infusions.^3,4 Responders to ketamine, a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, prove that nonresponders to monoamine reuptake inhibitors must not be falsely labeled as having TRD. They have a different subtype within the depression syndrome that is mediated by glutamatergic pathways, instead of monoamines such as serotonin, norepinephrine, or dopamine. In addition, unlike monoaminergic antidepressants, NMDA antagonists rapidly reverse suicidal urges, above and beyond rapidly reversing chronic, so-called TRD.

In the same vein, numerous reports have shown that buprenorphine has significant efficacy in TRD (and suicide urges, as does ketamine), which implicates opioid pathways as mediating some subtypes of TRD.⁵ The monoamine model of depression, which dominated the field and dragged on for half a century, has distracted psychiatric researchers from exploring and recognizing the multiple neurochemical and neuroplastic pathways of the depression syndrome, thus falsely assuming that depression is a monolithic disorder that responds to elevating the activity of brain monoamines. This major blind spot led to the ersatz concept of TRD.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS)

Since the discovery of chlorpromazine and other antipsychotics in the 1950s, it became apparent that a subset of patients with schizophrenia do not respond to medications that block dopamine D2 receptors. Partial responders were labeled as having TRS, and complete nonresponse was called refractory schizophrenia. Many patients with severe and persistent delusions and hallucinations were permanently hospitalized, and unable to live in the community like those who responded to dopamine antagonism.

In the late 1980s, the discovery that clozapine has significant efficacy in TRS and refractory schizophrenia provided the first insight that TRS and refractory schizophrenia represent different neuro­biologic subtypes of schizophrenia.^6,7 The extensive heterogeneity of schizophrenia (with hundreds of genetic and nongenetic etiologies) is now widely accepted.⁸ Patients with schizophrenia who do not respond to dopamine receptor antagonism should not be labeled TRS, because they can respond to a different antipsychotic agent, such as clozapine, which is believed to exert its efficacy via glutamate pathways.

Continue to: But what about the 50%...

But what about the 50% of patients with TRS or refractory schizophrenia who do not respond to clozapine?⁹ They do not have TRS, either, but represent different schizophrenia biotypes that may respond to other medications with different mechanisms of action, such as lamotrigine,¹⁰ which is a glutamate modulator; pimavanserin,¹¹ which is an inverse agonist of the serotonin 5HT-2A receptor; allopurinol,^12,13 an adenosine modulator; or estrogen,¹⁴ a neurosteroid. Future research will continue to unravel the many biotypes of the highly heterogeneous schizophrenia syndrome that are “nondopaminergic” and do not respond to the standard class of dopamine antagonists (previously called neuroleptics and now known as antipsychotics).¹⁵ Future treatments for schizophrenia may depart from modulating various neurotransmitter receptors to targeting entirely different neurobiologic processes, such as correcting mitochondria pathology, inhibiting microglia activation, repairing white matter, reversing apoptosis pathways, inducing neuroplasticity, arresting oxidative stress and inflammation, and other neuroprotective mechanisms.

The rapid growth of biomarkers in psychiatry¹⁶ will usher in an era of precision psychiatry¹⁷ that will eliminate the term “treatment resistance.” Our psychiatric practice will then benefit from “canceling” this demoralizing and clinically unjustified term that has needlessly fostered therapeutic nihilism among psychiatric physicians.

For millennia, serious psychiatric brain disorders (aka mental illnesses, melancholia, madness, insanity) were written off as incurable, permanent afflictions. It’s no wonder that they were engulfed with the stigma of hopelessness.

But then came the era of serendipitous discoveries in the mid-20th century, with the felicitous arrival of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and lithium. The dogma of untreatability was shattered, but in its wake, the notion of treatment resistance emerged, and promptly became the bane of psychiatric clinicians and the practice of psychopharmacology.

Many patients with mood and psychotic disorders responded to the medications that were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s, but some either derived partial benefit or did not improve at all. These partial or poor responders were labeled “treatment-resistant,” and caring for them became a major challenge for psychiatric physicians that continues to this day. However, rapid advances in understanding the many etiologies and subtypes of the heterogeneous mood and psychotic disorders are invalidating the notion of treatment resistance, showing it is a fallacy and a misnomer. Let’s examine why.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD)

Psychiatric clinics and hospitals are clogged with patients who do not respond to ≥2 evidence-based antidepressants and carry the disparaging label of “TRD.” But a patient manifesting what appears to be major depressive disorder (MDD) may actually have one of several types of depression that are unlikely to respond to an antidepressant, including:

• iatrogenic depression due to a prescription medication
• depression secondary to recreational drug use
• depressive symptoms secondary to a general medical condition
• bipolar depression.

Thus, a significant proportion of patients diagnosed with MDD are labeled TRD because they do not respond to standard antidepressants, when in fact they have been misdiagnosed and need a different treatment.

Even when the diagnosis of MDD is accurate, psychiatric neuroscience advances have informed us that MDD is a heterogeneous syndrome with multiple “biotypes” that share a similar phenotype.^1,2 In the past, TRD has been defined as a failure to respond to ≥2 adequate trials (8 to 12 weeks at a maximum tolerated dose) of antidepressants from different classes (such as tricyclic or heterocyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors). For decades, patients with TRD have been referred to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and have experienced an excellent response rate. So TRD is in fact an artificial concept and term, applied to a subtype of MDD that does not respond to standard antidepressants, but often responds very well to neurostimulation (ECT and transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]).

When an antidepressant is approved by the FDA based on “successful” placebo-controlled double-blind trials, there is always a subset of patients who do not respond. However, the success of a controlled clinical trial is based on a decline in overall mean depression rating scale score in the antidepressant group compared with the placebo group. Not a single antidepressant has ever exerted full efficacy in 100% of patients who received it in an FDA trial because the sample is always a heterogeneous mix of patients with various depression biotypes who meet the DSM clinical diagnosis of MDD. Most often, only approximately 50% do, which is enough to be statistically significantly better than the roughly 30% response rate in the placebo group. It is impossible for a heterogeneous syndrome comprised of biologically different “diseases” to respond to any single medication! Patients who do not respond to an antidepressant medication that works in other patients represent a different subtype of depression that is not TRD. Biotypes of the depression syndrome have different neurochemical underpinnings and may respond to different mechanisms of therapeutic action, yet to be discovered.

Continue to: A very common...

A very common clinical mistake occurs when patients with bipolar depression are misdiagnosed as having MDD because most of them experience depression as their initial mood episode. These patients often end up being classified as having TRD because bipolar depression very frequently fails to respond to several of the antidepressants that are FDA-approved for MDD. When these patients are correctly diagnosed, many will respond to one of the medications specifically approved for bipolar depression that were launched over the past 15 years (quetiapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine). However, bipolar disorder is also a heterogeneous spectrum, and some patients with bipolar depression may fail to respond to any of these 3 medications and are promptly regarded as TRD. Such patients often respond to neuromodulation (TMS, ECT, or vagus nerve stimulation [VNS]), indicating that they may have a different type of bipolar depression, such as bipolar type II.

A more recent example of the falsehood of TRD as a spurious diagnosis is the dramatic and rapid response of patients who are chronically depressed (both those with MDD and those with bipolar depression) to ketamine infusions.^3,4 Responders to ketamine, a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, prove that nonresponders to monoamine reuptake inhibitors must not be falsely labeled as having TRD. They have a different subtype within the depression syndrome that is mediated by glutamatergic pathways, instead of monoamines such as serotonin, norepinephrine, or dopamine. In addition, unlike monoaminergic antidepressants, NMDA antagonists rapidly reverse suicidal urges, above and beyond rapidly reversing chronic, so-called TRD.

In the same vein, numerous reports have shown that buprenorphine has significant efficacy in TRD (and suicide urges, as does ketamine), which implicates opioid pathways as mediating some subtypes of TRD.⁵ The monoamine model of depression, which dominated the field and dragged on for half a century, has distracted psychiatric researchers from exploring and recognizing the multiple neurochemical and neuroplastic pathways of the depression syndrome, thus falsely assuming that depression is a monolithic disorder that responds to elevating the activity of brain monoamines. This major blind spot led to the ersatz concept of TRD.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS)

Since the discovery of chlorpromazine and other antipsychotics in the 1950s, it became apparent that a subset of patients with schizophrenia do not respond to medications that block dopamine D2 receptors. Partial responders were labeled as having TRS, and complete nonresponse was called refractory schizophrenia. Many patients with severe and persistent delusions and hallucinations were permanently hospitalized, and unable to live in the community like those who responded to dopamine antagonism.

In the late 1980s, the discovery that clozapine has significant efficacy in TRS and refractory schizophrenia provided the first insight that TRS and refractory schizophrenia represent different neuro­biologic subtypes of schizophrenia.^6,7 The extensive heterogeneity of schizophrenia (with hundreds of genetic and nongenetic etiologies) is now widely accepted.⁸ Patients with schizophrenia who do not respond to dopamine receptor antagonism should not be labeled TRS, because they can respond to a different antipsychotic agent, such as clozapine, which is believed to exert its efficacy via glutamate pathways.

Continue to: But what about the 50%...

But what about the 50% of patients with TRS or refractory schizophrenia who do not respond to clozapine?⁹ They do not have TRS, either, but represent different schizophrenia biotypes that may respond to other medications with different mechanisms of action, such as lamotrigine,¹⁰ which is a glutamate modulator; pimavanserin,¹¹ which is an inverse agonist of the serotonin 5HT-2A receptor; allopurinol,^12,13 an adenosine modulator; or estrogen,¹⁴ a neurosteroid. Future research will continue to unravel the many biotypes of the highly heterogeneous schizophrenia syndrome that are “nondopaminergic” and do not respond to the standard class of dopamine antagonists (previously called neuroleptics and now known as antipsychotics).¹⁵ Future treatments for schizophrenia may depart from modulating various neurotransmitter receptors to targeting entirely different neurobiologic processes, such as correcting mitochondria pathology, inhibiting microglia activation, repairing white matter, reversing apoptosis pathways, inducing neuroplasticity, arresting oxidative stress and inflammation, and other neuroprotective mechanisms.

The rapid growth of biomarkers in psychiatry¹⁶ will usher in an era of precision psychiatry¹⁷ that will eliminate the term “treatment resistance.” Our psychiatric practice will then benefit from “canceling” this demoralizing and clinically unjustified term that has needlessly fostered therapeutic nihilism among psychiatric physicians.