Women's Health

Careful management of bipolar disorder during pregnancy is critical because for so many patients with this illness, the road to emotional well-being has been a long one, requiring a combination of careful pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/thinkstockphotos

Half of referrals to our Center for Women’s Mental Health – where we evaluate and treat women before, during, and after pregnancy – are for women who have histories of bipolar disorder. My colleagues and I are asked at continuing medical education programs what we “always do” and “never do” with respect to the treatment of these patients.
 

What about discontinuation of mood stabilizers during pregnancy and risk of relapse?

We never abruptly stop mood stabilizers if a patient has an unplanned pregnancy – a common scenario, with 50% of pregnancies across the country being unplanned across sociodemographic lines – save for sodium valproate, which is a clearly a documented teratogen; it increases risk for organ malformation and behavioral difficulties in exposed offspring. In our center, we typically view the use of sodium valproate in reproductive age women as contraindicated.

One may then question the circumstances under which lithium might be used during pregnancy, because many clinicians are faced with patients who have been exquisite responders to lithium. Such a patient may present with a history of mania, but there are obvious concerns given the historical literature, and even some more recent reports, that describe an increased risk of teratogenicity with fetal exposure to lithium.

Maintenance pharmacotherapy for women with bipolar disorder during pregnancy is so important, not only to decrease the risk of relapse following discontinuation of mood stabilizers, but because recurrence of illness during pregnancy for these patients is a very strong predictor of risk for postpartum depression. Women with bipolar disorder already are at a fivefold increased risk for postpartum depression, so discussion of sustaining euthymia during pregnancy for bipolar women is particularly timely given the focus nationally on treatment and prevention of postpartum depression.
 

In patients with history of mania, what about stopping treatment with lithium and other effective treatments during pregnancy?

Historically, we sometimes divided patients with bipolar disorder into those with “more severe recurrent disease” compared with those with more distant, circumscribed disease. In patients with more remote histories of mood dysregulation, we tended to discontinue treatment with mood stabilizers such as lithium or even newer second-generation atypical antipsychotics to see if patients could at least get through earlier stages of pregnancy before going back on anti-manic treatment.

Our experience now over several decades has revealed that this can be a risky clinical move. What we see is that even in patients with histories of mania years in the past (i.e., a circumscribed episode of mania during college in a woman now 35 years old with intervening sustained well-being), discontinuation of treatment that got patients well can lead to recurrence. Hence, we should not confuse an exquisite response to treatment with long periods of well-being as suggesting that the patient has a less severe form of bipolar disorder and hence the capacity to sustain that well-being when treatment is removed.
 

What about increasing/decreasing lithium dose during pregnancy and around time of delivery?

Select patients may be sensitive to changes in plasma levels of lithium, but the literature suggests that the clinical utility of arbitrarily sustaining plasma levels at the upper limit of the accepted range may be of only modest advantage, if any. With this as a backdrop and even while knowing that increased plasma volume of pregnancy is associated with a fall in plasma level of most medications, we do not arbitrarily increase the dose of lithium across pregnancy merely to sustain a level in the absence of a change in clinical symptoms. Indeed, to my knowledge, currently available data supporting a clear correlation of decline in plasma levels and frank change in symptoms during pregnancy are very sparse, if existent.

Earlier work had suggested that lithium dosage should be reduced proximate to delivery, a period characterized by rapid shifts in plasma volume during the acute peripartum period. Because physicians in our center do not alter lithium dose across pregnancy, we never reduce the dose of lithium proximate to delivery because of a theoretical concern for increased risk of either neonatal toxicity or maternal lithium toxicity, which is essentially nonexistent in terms of systematic reports in the literature.

Obvious concerns about lithium during pregnancy have focused on increased risk of teratogenesis, with the earliest reports supporting an increased risk of Epstein’s anomaly (0.05%-0.1%). More recent reports suggest an increased risk of cardiovascular malformations, which according to some investigators may be dose dependent.

For those patients who are exquisitely responsive to lithium, we typically leave them on the medicine and avail ourselves of current fetal echocardiographic evaluation at 16 weeks to 18 weeks to document the integrity of the fetal cardiac anatomy. Although the risk for cardiac malformations associated with lithium exposure during the first trimester is still exceedingly small, it is still extremely reassuring to patients to know that they are safely on the other side of a teratogenic window.
 

What about lamotrigine levels across pregnancy?

The last decade has seen a dramatic decrease in the administration of lithium to women with bipolar disorder, and growing use of both lamotrigine and second-generation atypical antipsychotics (frequently in combination) as an alternative. The changes in plasma level of lamotrigine across pregnancy are being increasingly well documented based on rigorous studies (Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Sep;45[3]:403-17).

These are welcome data, but the correlation between plasma concentration of lamotrigine and clinical response is a poor one. To date, there are sparse data to suggest that maintaining plasma levels of lithium or lamotrigine at a certain level during pregnancy changes clinical outcome. Following lamotrigine plasma levels during pregnancy seems more like an academic exercise than a procedure associated with particular clinical value.

As in the case of lithium, we never change lamotrigine doses proximate to pregnancy because of the absence of reports of neonatal toxicity associated with using lamotrigine during the peripartum period. The rationale for removing or minimizing the use of an effective medicine proximate to delivery, a period of risk for bipolar women, is lacking.

In 2019, we clearly are seeing a growing use of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy frequently coadministered with medicines such as lamotrigine as opposed to lithium. The accumulated data to date on second-generation atypical antipsychotics are not definitive, but increasingly are reassuring in terms of absence of a clear signal for teratogenicity; hence, our comfort in using this class of medicines is only growing, which is important given the prevalence of use of these agents in reproductive-age women.

If there is a single critical guiding principle for the clinician when it comes to managing bipolar women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, it is sustaining euthymia. With the recent focus of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on prevention of postpartum depression, nothing is more helpful perhaps than keeping women with bipolar disorder well, both proximate to pregnancy and during an actual pregnancy. Keeping those patients well maximizes the likelihood that they will proceed across the peripartum and into the postpartum period with a level of emotional well-being that optimizes and maximizes positive long-term outcomes for both patients and families.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Careful management of bipolar disorder during pregnancy is critical because for so many patients with this illness, the road to emotional well-being has been a long one, requiring a combination of careful pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/thinkstockphotos

Half of referrals to our Center for Women’s Mental Health – where we evaluate and treat women before, during, and after pregnancy – are for women who have histories of bipolar disorder. My colleagues and I are asked at continuing medical education programs what we “always do” and “never do” with respect to the treatment of these patients.
 

What about discontinuation of mood stabilizers during pregnancy and risk of relapse?

We never abruptly stop mood stabilizers if a patient has an unplanned pregnancy – a common scenario, with 50% of pregnancies across the country being unplanned across sociodemographic lines – save for sodium valproate, which is a clearly a documented teratogen; it increases risk for organ malformation and behavioral difficulties in exposed offspring. In our center, we typically view the use of sodium valproate in reproductive age women as contraindicated.

One may then question the circumstances under which lithium might be used during pregnancy, because many clinicians are faced with patients who have been exquisite responders to lithium. Such a patient may present with a history of mania, but there are obvious concerns given the historical literature, and even some more recent reports, that describe an increased risk of teratogenicity with fetal exposure to lithium.

Maintenance pharmacotherapy for women with bipolar disorder during pregnancy is so important, not only to decrease the risk of relapse following discontinuation of mood stabilizers, but because recurrence of illness during pregnancy for these patients is a very strong predictor of risk for postpartum depression. Women with bipolar disorder already are at a fivefold increased risk for postpartum depression, so discussion of sustaining euthymia during pregnancy for bipolar women is particularly timely given the focus nationally on treatment and prevention of postpartum depression.
 

In patients with history of mania, what about stopping treatment with lithium and other effective treatments during pregnancy?

Historically, we sometimes divided patients with bipolar disorder into those with “more severe recurrent disease” compared with those with more distant, circumscribed disease. In patients with more remote histories of mood dysregulation, we tended to discontinue treatment with mood stabilizers such as lithium or even newer second-generation atypical antipsychotics to see if patients could at least get through earlier stages of pregnancy before going back on anti-manic treatment.

Our experience now over several decades has revealed that this can be a risky clinical move. What we see is that even in patients with histories of mania years in the past (i.e., a circumscribed episode of mania during college in a woman now 35 years old with intervening sustained well-being), discontinuation of treatment that got patients well can lead to recurrence. Hence, we should not confuse an exquisite response to treatment with long periods of well-being as suggesting that the patient has a less severe form of bipolar disorder and hence the capacity to sustain that well-being when treatment is removed.
 

What about increasing/decreasing lithium dose during pregnancy and around time of delivery?

Select patients may be sensitive to changes in plasma levels of lithium, but the literature suggests that the clinical utility of arbitrarily sustaining plasma levels at the upper limit of the accepted range may be of only modest advantage, if any. With this as a backdrop and even while knowing that increased plasma volume of pregnancy is associated with a fall in plasma level of most medications, we do not arbitrarily increase the dose of lithium across pregnancy merely to sustain a level in the absence of a change in clinical symptoms. Indeed, to my knowledge, currently available data supporting a clear correlation of decline in plasma levels and frank change in symptoms during pregnancy are very sparse, if existent.

Earlier work had suggested that lithium dosage should be reduced proximate to delivery, a period characterized by rapid shifts in plasma volume during the acute peripartum period. Because physicians in our center do not alter lithium dose across pregnancy, we never reduce the dose of lithium proximate to delivery because of a theoretical concern for increased risk of either neonatal toxicity or maternal lithium toxicity, which is essentially nonexistent in terms of systematic reports in the literature.

Obvious concerns about lithium during pregnancy have focused on increased risk of teratogenesis, with the earliest reports supporting an increased risk of Epstein’s anomaly (0.05%-0.1%). More recent reports suggest an increased risk of cardiovascular malformations, which according to some investigators may be dose dependent.

For those patients who are exquisitely responsive to lithium, we typically leave them on the medicine and avail ourselves of current fetal echocardiographic evaluation at 16 weeks to 18 weeks to document the integrity of the fetal cardiac anatomy. Although the risk for cardiac malformations associated with lithium exposure during the first trimester is still exceedingly small, it is still extremely reassuring to patients to know that they are safely on the other side of a teratogenic window.
 

What about lamotrigine levels across pregnancy?

The last decade has seen a dramatic decrease in the administration of lithium to women with bipolar disorder, and growing use of both lamotrigine and second-generation atypical antipsychotics (frequently in combination) as an alternative. The changes in plasma level of lamotrigine across pregnancy are being increasingly well documented based on rigorous studies (Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Sep;45[3]:403-17).

These are welcome data, but the correlation between plasma concentration of lamotrigine and clinical response is a poor one. To date, there are sparse data to suggest that maintaining plasma levels of lithium or lamotrigine at a certain level during pregnancy changes clinical outcome. Following lamotrigine plasma levels during pregnancy seems more like an academic exercise than a procedure associated with particular clinical value.

As in the case of lithium, we never change lamotrigine doses proximate to pregnancy because of the absence of reports of neonatal toxicity associated with using lamotrigine during the peripartum period. The rationale for removing or minimizing the use of an effective medicine proximate to delivery, a period of risk for bipolar women, is lacking.

In 2019, we clearly are seeing a growing use of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy frequently coadministered with medicines such as lamotrigine as opposed to lithium. The accumulated data to date on second-generation atypical antipsychotics are not definitive, but increasingly are reassuring in terms of absence of a clear signal for teratogenicity; hence, our comfort in using this class of medicines is only growing, which is important given the prevalence of use of these agents in reproductive-age women.

If there is a single critical guiding principle for the clinician when it comes to managing bipolar women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, it is sustaining euthymia. With the recent focus of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on prevention of postpartum depression, nothing is more helpful perhaps than keeping women with bipolar disorder well, both proximate to pregnancy and during an actual pregnancy. Keeping those patients well maximizes the likelihood that they will proceed across the peripartum and into the postpartum period with a level of emotional well-being that optimizes and maximizes positive long-term outcomes for both patients and families.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Careful management of bipolar disorder during pregnancy is critical because for so many patients with this illness, the road to emotional well-being has been a long one, requiring a combination of careful pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/thinkstockphotos

Half of referrals to our Center for Women’s Mental Health – where we evaluate and treat women before, during, and after pregnancy – are for women who have histories of bipolar disorder. My colleagues and I are asked at continuing medical education programs what we “always do” and “never do” with respect to the treatment of these patients.
 

What about discontinuation of mood stabilizers during pregnancy and risk of relapse?

We never abruptly stop mood stabilizers if a patient has an unplanned pregnancy – a common scenario, with 50% of pregnancies across the country being unplanned across sociodemographic lines – save for sodium valproate, which is a clearly a documented teratogen; it increases risk for organ malformation and behavioral difficulties in exposed offspring. In our center, we typically view the use of sodium valproate in reproductive age women as contraindicated.

One may then question the circumstances under which lithium might be used during pregnancy, because many clinicians are faced with patients who have been exquisite responders to lithium. Such a patient may present with a history of mania, but there are obvious concerns given the historical literature, and even some more recent reports, that describe an increased risk of teratogenicity with fetal exposure to lithium.

Maintenance pharmacotherapy for women with bipolar disorder during pregnancy is so important, not only to decrease the risk of relapse following discontinuation of mood stabilizers, but because recurrence of illness during pregnancy for these patients is a very strong predictor of risk for postpartum depression. Women with bipolar disorder already are at a fivefold increased risk for postpartum depression, so discussion of sustaining euthymia during pregnancy for bipolar women is particularly timely given the focus nationally on treatment and prevention of postpartum depression.
 

In patients with history of mania, what about stopping treatment with lithium and other effective treatments during pregnancy?

Historically, we sometimes divided patients with bipolar disorder into those with “more severe recurrent disease” compared with those with more distant, circumscribed disease. In patients with more remote histories of mood dysregulation, we tended to discontinue treatment with mood stabilizers such as lithium or even newer second-generation atypical antipsychotics to see if patients could at least get through earlier stages of pregnancy before going back on anti-manic treatment.

Our experience now over several decades has revealed that this can be a risky clinical move. What we see is that even in patients with histories of mania years in the past (i.e., a circumscribed episode of mania during college in a woman now 35 years old with intervening sustained well-being), discontinuation of treatment that got patients well can lead to recurrence. Hence, we should not confuse an exquisite response to treatment with long periods of well-being as suggesting that the patient has a less severe form of bipolar disorder and hence the capacity to sustain that well-being when treatment is removed.
 

What about increasing/decreasing lithium dose during pregnancy and around time of delivery?

Select patients may be sensitive to changes in plasma levels of lithium, but the literature suggests that the clinical utility of arbitrarily sustaining plasma levels at the upper limit of the accepted range may be of only modest advantage, if any. With this as a backdrop and even while knowing that increased plasma volume of pregnancy is associated with a fall in plasma level of most medications, we do not arbitrarily increase the dose of lithium across pregnancy merely to sustain a level in the absence of a change in clinical symptoms. Indeed, to my knowledge, currently available data supporting a clear correlation of decline in plasma levels and frank change in symptoms during pregnancy are very sparse, if existent.

Earlier work had suggested that lithium dosage should be reduced proximate to delivery, a period characterized by rapid shifts in plasma volume during the acute peripartum period. Because physicians in our center do not alter lithium dose across pregnancy, we never reduce the dose of lithium proximate to delivery because of a theoretical concern for increased risk of either neonatal toxicity or maternal lithium toxicity, which is essentially nonexistent in terms of systematic reports in the literature.

Obvious concerns about lithium during pregnancy have focused on increased risk of teratogenesis, with the earliest reports supporting an increased risk of Epstein’s anomaly (0.05%-0.1%). More recent reports suggest an increased risk of cardiovascular malformations, which according to some investigators may be dose dependent.

For those patients who are exquisitely responsive to lithium, we typically leave them on the medicine and avail ourselves of current fetal echocardiographic evaluation at 16 weeks to 18 weeks to document the integrity of the fetal cardiac anatomy. Although the risk for cardiac malformations associated with lithium exposure during the first trimester is still exceedingly small, it is still extremely reassuring to patients to know that they are safely on the other side of a teratogenic window.
 

What about lamotrigine levels across pregnancy?

The last decade has seen a dramatic decrease in the administration of lithium to women with bipolar disorder, and growing use of both lamotrigine and second-generation atypical antipsychotics (frequently in combination) as an alternative. The changes in plasma level of lamotrigine across pregnancy are being increasingly well documented based on rigorous studies (Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2018 Sep;45[3]:403-17).

These are welcome data, but the correlation between plasma concentration of lamotrigine and clinical response is a poor one. To date, there are sparse data to suggest that maintaining plasma levels of lithium or lamotrigine at a certain level during pregnancy changes clinical outcome. Following lamotrigine plasma levels during pregnancy seems more like an academic exercise than a procedure associated with particular clinical value.

As in the case of lithium, we never change lamotrigine doses proximate to pregnancy because of the absence of reports of neonatal toxicity associated with using lamotrigine during the peripartum period. The rationale for removing or minimizing the use of an effective medicine proximate to delivery, a period of risk for bipolar women, is lacking.

In 2019, we clearly are seeing a growing use of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy frequently coadministered with medicines such as lamotrigine as opposed to lithium. The accumulated data to date on second-generation atypical antipsychotics are not definitive, but increasingly are reassuring in terms of absence of a clear signal for teratogenicity; hence, our comfort in using this class of medicines is only growing, which is important given the prevalence of use of these agents in reproductive-age women.

If there is a single critical guiding principle for the clinician when it comes to managing bipolar women during pregnancy and the postpartum period, it is sustaining euthymia. With the recent focus of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on prevention of postpartum depression, nothing is more helpful perhaps than keeping women with bipolar disorder well, both proximate to pregnancy and during an actual pregnancy. Keeping those patients well maximizes the likelihood that they will proceed across the peripartum and into the postpartum period with a level of emotional well-being that optimizes and maximizes positive long-term outcomes for both patients and families.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He is also the Edmund and Carroll Carpenter professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Long-term use of alendronate and zoledronic acid for more than 3 years reduces the rate of vertebral fracture in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with notable, yet rare, adverse events, but too little evidence exists to make determinations on the long-term benefit/risk profile of other bisphosphonates or other osteoporosis drugs besides raloxifene and oral hormone therapy, according to a report coming out of a recent National Institutes of Health workshop.

This situation leaves a large research gap that authors of an accompanying position paper hope to bridge with recommendations for studying therapy discontinuation and drug holidays during long-term osteoporosis drug treatment.

The NIH’s Pathways to Prevention (P2P) Workshop: Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention outlined the findings of the systematic review of long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT), which was commissioned by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention. The systematic review and a position paper summarizing the workshop were published April 23 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinicians and patients need increased information on benefits and risks to inform shared decision making about the use of these treatments, taking into account patients’ values and preferences,” Albert Siu, MD, of the Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and his colleagues wrote in the position paper (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961). “The research ... is urgently needed to advance prevention of osteoporosis-related mortality and morbidity.”

In the systematic review, by a group of researchers separate from the workshop, 48 studies were identified (35 trials, 13 observational studies) that compared men and postmenopausal women 50 years or older who used treatments such as alendronate, raloxifene, zoledronic acid, and hormone therapy. The researchers found that use of alendronate for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical fractures (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.82) and radiographic vertebral fractures (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82) in women with osteoporosis. Raloxifene use for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical vertebral fractures (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and radiographic vertebral fractures (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76) but not nonvertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid use for 6 years was associated with a lower rate of nonvertebral fractures (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.85) and clinical vertebral fractures (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.75) in women with both osteoporosis and osteopenia. Estrogen-progestin use for 5.6 years and unopposed estrogen for 7 years was associated with clinical fracture reduction in women with unspecified osteoporosis and osteopenia when compared with placebo (Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0533).

Controlled observational studies collectively show that long-term use of alendronate and of bisphosphonates as a class increased risk for radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture but by a small absolute amount, with less evidence for risks of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures without radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture features and osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, there were no eligible observational studies with long-term use of zoledronic acid that evaluated risk for these adverse events.

Long-term raloxifene therapy was associated with a threefold increased risk for deep venous thrombosis and a three- to fourfold increased risk for pulmonary embolism, although not all results were statistically significant, the researchers said. In two long-term trials, both estrogen and estrogen-progestin compared with placebo increased risk for cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment. Estrogen-progestin also increased risk for invasive breast cancer.

The researchers also studied abaloparatide, denosumab, ibandronate, risedronate, and teriparatide, but noted there were insufficient data to show the long-term effects of their use on fractures and other harms.

Dr. Siu and coauthors on the position paper made the following recommendations with regard to future research on long-term ODT:

• Using “innovative designs and approaches” for new research such as modeling studies, clinical trials, and observational studies of existing and potential treatments.

• Evaluating new agents or multicomponent interventions, such as fracture liaison services and oral care, that do not carry the downsides of antiresorptive therapies.

• Researching and preventing atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw, particularly when associated with long-term denosumab or bisphosphonate use.

• Determining which patients are indicated for drug holidays, sequential therapies, and strategies for avoiding serious adverse events.

• Studying barriers to ODT.

“When we have information on these outcomes, such as how medication use after a fragility fracture is linked to future fractures or survival rates, we need to understand how to convey that information to patients so they can make more informed decisions about their care,” noted Dr. Siu and colleagues.

In an editorial related to both the position paper and the systematic review, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed that clinical trial data do not answer questions about shared decision making for women with multiple comorbid conditions, the long-term effects of ODT with regard to rare fracture risk, and which patients are well-suited for drug holidays.

“The National Institutes of Health should support research to answer these high-impact clinical questions, in addition to encouraging approaches for clinicians to determine which individual patients are at greater risk for harms related to long-term bisphosphonate use,” she said. “The need to rigorously study patient preferences in the context of ODT is pressing because of the complex dosing instructions of oral bisphosphonates and the dramatic underutilization of ODT among persons who have already had a vertebral or hip fracture.”

The systematic review was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors of the position paper and Dr. Crandall reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siu A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961.

Long-term use of alendronate and zoledronic acid for more than 3 years reduces the rate of vertebral fracture in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with notable, yet rare, adverse events, but too little evidence exists to make determinations on the long-term benefit/risk profile of other bisphosphonates or other osteoporosis drugs besides raloxifene and oral hormone therapy, according to a report coming out of a recent National Institutes of Health workshop.

This situation leaves a large research gap that authors of an accompanying position paper hope to bridge with recommendations for studying therapy discontinuation and drug holidays during long-term osteoporosis drug treatment.

The NIH’s Pathways to Prevention (P2P) Workshop: Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention outlined the findings of the systematic review of long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT), which was commissioned by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention. The systematic review and a position paper summarizing the workshop were published April 23 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinicians and patients need increased information on benefits and risks to inform shared decision making about the use of these treatments, taking into account patients’ values and preferences,” Albert Siu, MD, of the Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and his colleagues wrote in the position paper (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961). “The research ... is urgently needed to advance prevention of osteoporosis-related mortality and morbidity.”

In the systematic review, by a group of researchers separate from the workshop, 48 studies were identified (35 trials, 13 observational studies) that compared men and postmenopausal women 50 years or older who used treatments such as alendronate, raloxifene, zoledronic acid, and hormone therapy. The researchers found that use of alendronate for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical fractures (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.82) and radiographic vertebral fractures (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82) in women with osteoporosis. Raloxifene use for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical vertebral fractures (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and radiographic vertebral fractures (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76) but not nonvertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid use for 6 years was associated with a lower rate of nonvertebral fractures (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.85) and clinical vertebral fractures (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.75) in women with both osteoporosis and osteopenia. Estrogen-progestin use for 5.6 years and unopposed estrogen for 7 years was associated with clinical fracture reduction in women with unspecified osteoporosis and osteopenia when compared with placebo (Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0533).

Controlled observational studies collectively show that long-term use of alendronate and of bisphosphonates as a class increased risk for radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture but by a small absolute amount, with less evidence for risks of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures without radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture features and osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, there were no eligible observational studies with long-term use of zoledronic acid that evaluated risk for these adverse events.

Long-term raloxifene therapy was associated with a threefold increased risk for deep venous thrombosis and a three- to fourfold increased risk for pulmonary embolism, although not all results were statistically significant, the researchers said. In two long-term trials, both estrogen and estrogen-progestin compared with placebo increased risk for cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment. Estrogen-progestin also increased risk for invasive breast cancer.

The researchers also studied abaloparatide, denosumab, ibandronate, risedronate, and teriparatide, but noted there were insufficient data to show the long-term effects of their use on fractures and other harms.

Dr. Siu and coauthors on the position paper made the following recommendations with regard to future research on long-term ODT:

• Using “innovative designs and approaches” for new research such as modeling studies, clinical trials, and observational studies of existing and potential treatments.

• Evaluating new agents or multicomponent interventions, such as fracture liaison services and oral care, that do not carry the downsides of antiresorptive therapies.

• Researching and preventing atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw, particularly when associated with long-term denosumab or bisphosphonate use.

• Determining which patients are indicated for drug holidays, sequential therapies, and strategies for avoiding serious adverse events.

• Studying barriers to ODT.

“When we have information on these outcomes, such as how medication use after a fragility fracture is linked to future fractures or survival rates, we need to understand how to convey that information to patients so they can make more informed decisions about their care,” noted Dr. Siu and colleagues.

In an editorial related to both the position paper and the systematic review, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed that clinical trial data do not answer questions about shared decision making for women with multiple comorbid conditions, the long-term effects of ODT with regard to rare fracture risk, and which patients are well-suited for drug holidays.

“The National Institutes of Health should support research to answer these high-impact clinical questions, in addition to encouraging approaches for clinicians to determine which individual patients are at greater risk for harms related to long-term bisphosphonate use,” she said. “The need to rigorously study patient preferences in the context of ODT is pressing because of the complex dosing instructions of oral bisphosphonates and the dramatic underutilization of ODT among persons who have already had a vertebral or hip fracture.”

The systematic review was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors of the position paper and Dr. Crandall reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siu A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961.

Long-term use of alendronate and zoledronic acid for more than 3 years reduces the rate of vertebral fracture in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with notable, yet rare, adverse events, but too little evidence exists to make determinations on the long-term benefit/risk profile of other bisphosphonates or other osteoporosis drugs besides raloxifene and oral hormone therapy, according to a report coming out of a recent National Institutes of Health workshop.

This situation leaves a large research gap that authors of an accompanying position paper hope to bridge with recommendations for studying therapy discontinuation and drug holidays during long-term osteoporosis drug treatment.

The NIH’s Pathways to Prevention (P2P) Workshop: Appropriate Use of Drug Therapies for Osteoporotic Fracture Prevention outlined the findings of the systematic review of long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT), which was commissioned by the NIH Office of Disease Prevention. The systematic review and a position paper summarizing the workshop were published April 23 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Clinicians and patients need increased information on benefits and risks to inform shared decision making about the use of these treatments, taking into account patients’ values and preferences,” Albert Siu, MD, of the Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and his colleagues wrote in the position paper (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961). “The research ... is urgently needed to advance prevention of osteoporosis-related mortality and morbidity.”

In the systematic review, by a group of researchers separate from the workshop, 48 studies were identified (35 trials, 13 observational studies) that compared men and postmenopausal women 50 years or older who used treatments such as alendronate, raloxifene, zoledronic acid, and hormone therapy. The researchers found that use of alendronate for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical fractures (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.82) and radiographic vertebral fractures (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.82) in women with osteoporosis. Raloxifene use for 4 years reduced the rate of clinical vertebral fractures (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.79) and radiographic vertebral fractures (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76) but not nonvertebral fractures. Zoledronic acid use for 6 years was associated with a lower rate of nonvertebral fractures (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.85) and clinical vertebral fractures (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.75) in women with both osteoporosis and osteopenia. Estrogen-progestin use for 5.6 years and unopposed estrogen for 7 years was associated with clinical fracture reduction in women with unspecified osteoporosis and osteopenia when compared with placebo (Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0533).

Controlled observational studies collectively show that long-term use of alendronate and of bisphosphonates as a class increased risk for radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture but by a small absolute amount, with less evidence for risks of subtrochanteric or femoral shaft fractures without radiologically confirmed atypical femoral fracture features and osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, there were no eligible observational studies with long-term use of zoledronic acid that evaluated risk for these adverse events.

Long-term raloxifene therapy was associated with a threefold increased risk for deep venous thrombosis and a three- to fourfold increased risk for pulmonary embolism, although not all results were statistically significant, the researchers said. In two long-term trials, both estrogen and estrogen-progestin compared with placebo increased risk for cardiovascular disease and cognitive impairment. Estrogen-progestin also increased risk for invasive breast cancer.

The researchers also studied abaloparatide, denosumab, ibandronate, risedronate, and teriparatide, but noted there were insufficient data to show the long-term effects of their use on fractures and other harms.

Dr. Siu and coauthors on the position paper made the following recommendations with regard to future research on long-term ODT:

• Using “innovative designs and approaches” for new research such as modeling studies, clinical trials, and observational studies of existing and potential treatments.

• Evaluating new agents or multicomponent interventions, such as fracture liaison services and oral care, that do not carry the downsides of antiresorptive therapies.

• Researching and preventing atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw, particularly when associated with long-term denosumab or bisphosphonate use.

• Determining which patients are indicated for drug holidays, sequential therapies, and strategies for avoiding serious adverse events.

• Studying barriers to ODT.

“When we have information on these outcomes, such as how medication use after a fragility fracture is linked to future fractures or survival rates, we need to understand how to convey that information to patients so they can make more informed decisions about their care,” noted Dr. Siu and colleagues.

In an editorial related to both the position paper and the systematic review, Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, agreed that clinical trial data do not answer questions about shared decision making for women with multiple comorbid conditions, the long-term effects of ODT with regard to rare fracture risk, and which patients are well-suited for drug holidays.

“The National Institutes of Health should support research to answer these high-impact clinical questions, in addition to encouraging approaches for clinicians to determine which individual patients are at greater risk for harms related to long-term bisphosphonate use,” she said. “The need to rigorously study patient preferences in the context of ODT is pressing because of the complex dosing instructions of oral bisphosphonates and the dramatic underutilization of ODT among persons who have already had a vertebral or hip fracture.”

The systematic review was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors of the position paper and Dr. Crandall reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siu A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 April 23. doi: 10.7326/M19-0961.

Some people, most of them relatively young women, experience lightheadedness, a racing heart, and other symptoms (but not hypotension) when they stand up, in a condition known as postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS).¹ Although not known to shorten life,¹ it can be physically and mentally debilitating.^2,3 Therapy rarely cures it, but a multifaceted approach can substantially improve quality of life.

This review outlines the evaluation and diagnosis of POTS and provides guidance for a therapy regimen.

HOW IS POTS DEFINED?

POTS is a multifactorial syndrome rather than a specific disease. It is characterized by all of the following^1,4–6:

• An increase in heart rate of ≥ 30 bpm, or ≥ 40 bpm for those under age 19, within 10 minutes of standing from a supine position
• Sustained tachycardia (> 30 seconds) 
• Absence of orthostatic hypotension (a fall in blood pressure of ≥ 20/10 mm Hg)
• Frequent and chronic duration (≥ 6 months).

These features are critical to diagnosis. Hemodynamic criteria in isolation may describe postural tachycardia but are not sufficient to diagnose POTS.

The prevalence of POTS is estimated to be between 0.2% and 1.0%,⁷ affecting up to 3 million people in the United States. Most cases arise between ages 13 and 50, with a female-to-male ratio of 5:1.⁸

MANY NAMES, SAME CONDITION

In 1871, Da Costa⁹ described a condition he called “irritable heart syndrome” that had characteristics similar to those of POTS, including extreme fatigue and exercise intolerance. Decades later, Lewis¹⁰ and Wood¹¹ provided more detailed descriptions of the disorder, renaming it “soldier’s heart” or “Da Costa syndrome.” As other cases were documented, more terms arose, including “effort syndrome” and “mitral valve prolapse syndrome.”

In 1982, Rosen and Cryer¹² were the first to use the term “postural tachycardia syndrome” for patients with disabling tachycardia upon standing without orthostatic hypotension. In 1986, Fouad et al¹³ described patients with postural tachycardia, orthostatic intolerance, and a small degree of hypotension as having “idiopathic hypovolemia.”

In 1993, Schondorf and Low¹⁴ established the current definition of POTS, leading to increased awareness and research efforts to understand its pathophysiology.

MULTIFACTORIAL PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

During the last 2 decades, several often-overlapping forms of POTS have been recognized, all of which share a final common pathway of sustained orthostatic tachycardia.^15–19 In addition, a number of common comorbidities were identified through review of large clinic populations of POTS.^20,21

Hypovolemic POTS

Up to 70% of patients with POTS have hypovolemia. The average plasma volume deficit is about 13%, which typically causes only insignificant changes in heart rate and norepinephrine levels while a patient is supine. However, blood pooling associated with upright posture further compromises cardiac output and consequently increases sympathetic nerve activity. Abnormalities in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone volume regulation system are also suspected to impair sodium retention, contributing to hypovolemia.^1,22

Neuropathic POTS

About half of patients with POTS have partial sympathetic denervation (particularly in the lower limbs) and inadequate vasoconstriction upon standing, leading to reduced venous return and stroke volume.^17,23 A compensatory increase in sympathetic tone results in tachycardia to maintain cardiac output and blood pressure.

Hyperadrenergic POTS

Up to 50% of patients with POTS have high norepinephrine levels (≥ 600 pg/mL) when upright. This subtype, hyperadrenergic POTS, is characterized by an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 10 mm Hg within 10 minutes of standing, with concomitant tachycardia that can be similar to or greater than that seen in nonhyperadrenergic POTS. Patients with hyperadrenergic POTS tend to report more prominent symptoms of sympathetic activation, such as palpitations, anxiety, and tremulousness.^24,25

Norepinephrine transporter deficiency

The norepinephrine transporter (NET) is on the presynaptic cleft of sympathetic neurons and serves to clear synaptic norepinephrine. NET deficiency leads to a hyperadrenergic state and elevated sympathetic nerve activation.¹⁸ NET deficiency may be induced by common antidepressants (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and attention-deficit disorder medications.⁴

Mast cell activation syndrome

The relationship between mast cell activation syndrome and POTS is poorly understood.^4,26 Mast cell activation syndrome has been described in a subset of patients with POTS who have sinus tachycardia accompanied by severe episodic flushing. Patients with this subtype have a hyperadrenergic response to postural change and elevated urine methylhistamine during flushing episodes.

Patients with mast cell activation syndrome tend to have strong allergic symptoms and may also have severe gastrointestinal problems, food sensitivities, dermatographism, and neuropathy. Diagnosis can be difficult, as the condition is associated with numerous markers with varying sensitivity and specificity.

Autoimmune origin

A significant minority of patients report a viral-like illness before the onset of POTS symptoms, suggesting a possible autoimmune-mediated or inflammatory cause. Also, some autoimmune disorders (eg, Sjögren syndrome) can present with a POTS-like manifestation.

Research into the role of autoantibodies in the pathophysiology of POTS offers the potential to develop novel therapeutic targets. Auto­antibodies that have been reported in POTS include those against M1 to M3 muscarinic receptors (present in over 87% of patients with POTS),²⁷ cardiac lipid raft-associated proteins,²⁸ adrenergic G-protein coupled receptors, alpha-1-adrenergic receptors, and beta-1- and beta-2-adrenergic receptors.²⁹ Although commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can assess for these antibody fragments, it is not known whether targeting the antibodies improves outcomes. At this time, antibody testing for POTS should be confined to the research setting.

LINKS TO OTHER SYNDROMES

POTS is often associated with other conditions whose symptoms cannot be explained by postural intolerance or tachycardia.

Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of inherited heterogeneous disorders involving joint hypermobility, skin hyperextensibility, and tissue fragility.³⁰ The hypermobile subtype is most commonly associated with POTS, with patients often having symptoms of autonomic dysregulation and autonomic test abnormalities.^31–33 Patients with POTS may have a history of joint subluxations, joint pain, cervical instability, and spontaneous epidural leaks. The reason for the overlap between the two syndromes is not clear.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by persistent fatigue that does not resolve with rest and is not necessarily associated with orthostatic changes. More than 75% of patients with POTS report general fatigue as a major complaint, and up to 23% meet the full criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.³⁴

A patient presenting with symptoms suggestive of POTS should first undergo a detailed history and physical examination. Other causes of sinus tachycardia should be considered. 

Detailed history, symptom review

The history should focus on determining symptom burden, including tachycardia onset, frequency, severity, and triggers; the presence of syncope; and the impact of symptoms on daily function and quality of life.

Presyncope and its associated symptoms occur in less than one-third of patients with POTS, and syncope is not a principal feature.⁴ If syncope is the predominant complaint, alternative causes should be investigated. The usual cause of syncope in the general population is thought to be vasovagal.

In addition to orthostatic intolerance, gastrointestinal disturbances are common in POTS, presenting as abdominal pain, heartburn, irregular bowel movements, diarrhea, or constipation. Symptoms of gastroparesis are less common. Gastrointestinal symptoms tend to be prolonged, lasting hours and occurring multiple times a week. They tend not to improve in the supine position.³⁵ 

POTS-associated symptoms may develop insidiously, but patients often report onset after an acute stressor such as pregnancy, major surgery, or a presumed viral illness.⁴ Whether these putative triggers are causative or coincidental is unknown. Symptoms of orthostatic intolerance tend to be exacerbated by dehydration, heat, alcohol, exercise, and menstruation.^36,37

Consider the family history: 1 in 8 patients with POTS reports familial orthostatic intolerance,³⁸ suggesting a genetic role in some patients. Inquire about symptoms or a previous diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome.

Consider other conditions

Pheochromocytoma causes hyperadrenergic symptoms (eg, palpitations, lightheadedness) like those in POTS, but patients with pheochromocytoma typically have these symptoms while supine. Pheochromocytoma is also characterized by plasma norepinephrine levels much higher than in POTS.⁴ Plasma metanephrine testing helps diagnose or rule out pheochromocytoma.⁵

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia, like pheochromocytoma, also has clinical features similar to those of POTS, as well as tachycardia present when supine. It involves higher sympathetic tone and lower parasympathetic tone compared with POTS; patients commonly have a daytime resting heart rate of at least 100 bpm or a 24-hour mean heart rate of at least 90 bpm.^1,42 While the intrinsic heart rate is heightened in inappropriate sinus tachycardia, it is not different between POTS patients and healthy individuals.^42,43 Distinguishing POTS from inappropriate sinus tachycardia is further complicated by the broad inclusion criteria of most studies of inappropriate sinus tachycardia, which failed to exclude patients with POTS.⁴⁴ The Heart Rhythm Society recently adopted distinct definitions for the 2 conditions.¹

Physical examination: Focus on vital signs

Dependent acrocyanosis—dark red-blue discoloration of the lower legs that is cold to the touch—occurs in about half of patients with POTS upon standing.⁴ Dependent acrocyanosis is associated with joint hypermobility and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, so these conditions should also be considered if findings are positive.

Laboratory testing for other causes

Laboratory testing is used mainly to detect primary causes of sinus tachycardia. Tests should include:

• Complete blood cell count with hematocrit (for severe anemia)
• Thyroid-stimulating hormone level (for hyperthyroidism)
• Electrolyte panel (for significant electrolyte disturbances).

Evidence is insufficient to support routinely measuring the vitamin B₁₂ level, iron indices, and serum markers for celiac disease, although these may be done if the history or physical examination suggests related problems.⁴ Sicca symptoms (severe dry eye or dry mouth) should trigger evaluation for Sjögren syndrome.

Electrocardiography needed

Electrocardiography should be performed to investigate for cardiac conduction abnormalities as well as for resting markers of a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. Extended ambulatory (Holter) monitoring may be useful to evaluate for a transient reentrant tachyarrhythmia⁴; however, it does not record body position, so it can be difficult to determine if detected episodes of tachycardia are related to posture.

Additional testing for select cases

Further investigation is usually not needed to diagnose POTS but should be considered in some cases. Advanced tests are typically performed at a tertiary care referral center and include: 


• Quantitative sensory testing to evaluate for small-fiber neuropathy (ie, Quantitative Sudomotor Axon Reflex Test, or QSART), which occurs in the neuropathic POTS subtype
• Formal autonomic function testing to characterize neurovascular responsiveness  
• Supine and standing plasma norepinephrine levels (fractionated catecholamines) to characterize the net activation of the sympathetic nervous system
• Blood volume assessments to assess hypovolemia 
• Formal exercise testing to objectively quantify exercise capacity.

No single universal gold-standard therapy exists for POTS, and management should be individually determined with the primary goals of treating symptoms and restoring function. A graded approach should be used, starting with conservative nonpharmacologic therapies and adding medications as needed.

While the disease course varies substantially from patient to patient, proper management is strongly associated with eventual symptom improvement.¹

NONPHARMACOLOGIC STEPS FIRST

Education

Patients should be informed of the nature of their condition and referred to appropriate healthcare personnel. POTS is a chronic illness requiring individualized coping strategies, intensive physician interaction, and support of a multidisciplinary team. Patients and family members can be reassured that most symptoms improve over time with appropriate diagnosis and treatment.¹ Patients should be advised to avoid aggravating triggers and activities.

Exercise

Exercise programs are encouraged but should be introduced gradually, as physical activity can exacerbate symptoms, especially at the outset. Several studies have reported benefits from a short-term (3-month) program, in which the patient gradually progresses from non-upright exercise (eg, rowing machine, recumbent cycle, swimming) to upright endurance exercises. At the end of these programs, significant cardiac remodeling, improved quality of life, and reduced heart rate responses to standing have been reported, and benefits have been reported to persist in patients who continued exercising after the 3-month study period.^46,47

Despite the benefits of exercise interventions, compliance is low.^46,47 To prevent early discouragement, patients should be advised that it can take 4 to 6 weeks of continued exercise before benefits appear. Patients are encouraged to exercise every other day for 30 minutes or more. Regimens should primarily focus on aerobic conditioning, but resistance training, concentrating on thigh muscles, can also help. Exercise is a treatment and not a cure, and benefits can rapidly disappear if regular activity (at least 3 times per week) is stopped.⁴⁸

Compression stockings

Compression stockings help reduce peripheral venous pooling and enhance venous return to the heart. Waist-high stockings with compression of at least 30 to 40 mm Hg offer the best results. 

Diet

Increased fluid and salt intake is advisable for patients with suspected hypovolemia. At least 2 to 3 L of water accompanied by 10 to 12 g of daily sodium intake is recommended.¹ This can usually be accomplished with diet and salt added to food, but salt tablets can be used if the patient prefers. The resultant plasma volume expansion may help reduce the reflex tachycardia upon standing.⁴⁹

Check medications

Rescue therapy with saline infusion

Intravenous saline infusion can augment blood volume in patients who are clinically decompensated and present with severe symptoms.¹ Intermittent infusion of 1 L of normal saline has been found to significantly reduce orthostatic tachycardia and related symptoms in patients with POTS, contributing to improved quality of life.^51,52

Chronic saline infusions are not recommended for long-term care because of the risk of access complications and infection.¹ Moak et al⁵³ reported a high rate of bacteremia in a cohort of children with POTS with regular saline infusions, most of whom had a central line. On the other hand, Ruzieh et al⁵⁴ reported significantly improved symptoms with regular saline infusions without a high rate of complications, but patients in this study received infusions for only a few months and through a peripheral intravenous catheter.

DRUG THERAPY

No medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Health Canada specifically for treating POTS, making all pharmacologic recommendations off-label. Although the drugs discussed below have been evaluated for POTS in controlled laboratory settings, they have yet to be tested in robust clinical trials.

Blood volume expansion

Several drugs expand blood volume, which may reduce orthostatic tachycardia.

Fludrocortisone is a synthetic aldosterone analogue that enhances sodium and water retention. Although one observational study found that it normalizes hemodynamic changes in response to orthostatic stress, no high-level evidence exists for its effectiveness for POTS.⁵⁵ It is generally well tolerated, although possible adverse effects include hyperkalemia, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, headache, and edema.^5,56

Desmopressin is a synthetic version of a natural antidiuretic hormone that increases kidney-mediated free-water reabsorption without sodium retention. It significantly reduces upright heart rate in patients with POTS and improves symptom burden. Although potential adverse effects include edema and headache, hyponatremia is the primary concern with daily use, especially with the increased water intake advised for POTS.⁵⁷ Patients should be advised to use desmopressin no more than once a week for the acute improvement of symptoms. Intermittent monitoring of serum sodium levels is recommended for safety.

Erythropoietin replacement has been suggested for treating POTS to address the significant deficit in red blood cell volume. Although erythropoietin therapy has a direct vasoconstrictive effect and largely improves red blood cell volume in patients with POTS, it does not expand plasma volume, so orthostatic tachycardia is not itself reduced.²² Nevertheless, it may significantly improve POTS symptoms refractory to more common methods of treatment, and it should be reserved for such cases. In addition to the lack of effect on orthostatic tachycardia, drawbacks to using erythropoietin include its high cost, the need for subcutaneous administration, and the risk of life-threatening complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke.^58,59

Heart rate-lowering agents

Propranolol, a nonselective beta-adrenergic antagonist, can significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptoms at low dosages (10–20 mg). Higher dosages can further restrain orthostatic tachycardia but are not as well tolerated, mainly due to hypotension and worsening of existing symptoms such as fatigue.⁶⁰ Regular-acting propranolol works for about 4 to 5 hours per dose, so full-day coverage often requires dosing 4 times per day.

Ivabradine is a selective blocker of the  “funny” (I_f) channel that reduces the sinus node firing rate without affecting blood pressure, so it slows heart rate without causing supine hypertension or orthostatic hypotension.

A retrospective case series found that 60% of patients with POTS treated with ivabradine reported symptomatic improvement, and all patients experienced reduced tachycardia with continued use.⁶¹ Ivabradine has not been compared with placebo or propranolol in a randomized controlled trial, and it has not been well studied in pregnancy and so should be avoided because of potential teratogenic effects.

When prescribing ivabradine for women of childbearing age, a negative pregnancy test may be documented prior to initiation of therapy, and the use of highly effective methods of contraception is recommended. Ivabradine should be avoided in women contemplating pregnancy. Insurance coverage can limit access to ivabradine in the United States.

Central nervous system sympatholytics

Patients with prominent hyperadrenergic features may benefit from central sympatholytic agents. However, these drugs may not be well tolerated in patients with neuropathic POTS because of the effects of reduced systemic vascular resistance⁵ and the possible exacerbation of drowsiness, fatigue, and mental clouding.⁴ Patients can be extremely sensitive to these medications, so they should initially be prescribed at the lowest dose, then gradually increased as tolerated.

Clonidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, decreases central sympathetic tone. In hyperadrenergic patients, clonidine can stabilize heart rate and blood pressure, thereby reducing orthostatic symptoms.⁶²

Methyldopa has effects similar to those of clonidine but is easier to titrate owing to its longer half-life.⁶³ Methyldopa is typically started at 125 mg at bedtime and increased to 125 mg twice daily, if tolerated.             

Midodrine is a prodrug. The active form, an alpha-1-adrenergic agonist, constricts peripheral veins and arteries to increase vascular resistance and venous return, thereby reducing orthostatic tachycardia.⁵² It is most useful in patients with impaired peripheral vasoconstriction (eg, neuropathic POTS) and may be less effective in those with hyperadrenergic POTS.⁶⁴ Major limitations of midodrine include worsening supine hypertension and possible urinary retention.³⁹

Because of midodrine’s short half-life, frequent dosing is required during daytime hours (eg, 8 AM, noon, and 4 PM), but it should not be taken within 4 to 5 hours of sleep because of the risk of supine hypertension. Midodrine is typically started at 2.5 to 5 mg per dose and can be titrated up to 15 mg per dose.

Midodrine is an FDA pregnancy category  C drug (adverse effects in pregnancy seen in animal models, but evidence lacking in humans). While ideally it should be avoided, we have used it safely in pregnant women with disabling POTS symptoms.

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, increases cardiovagal tone and possibly sympathetic tone. It has been reported to significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptom burden in patients with POTS.⁶⁵ However, pyridostigmine increases gastrointestinal mobility, leading to severe adverse effects in over 20% of patients, including abdominal cramps, nausea, and diarrhea.⁶⁶

Droxidopa, a synthetic amino acid precursor of norepinephrine, improves dizziness and fatigue in POTS with minimal effects on blood pressure.⁶⁷

Modafinil, a psychostimulant, may improve POTS-associated cognitive symptoms.⁴ It also raises upright blood pressure without significantly worsening standing heart rate or acute orthostatic symptoms.⁶⁸

EFFECTS OF COMORBID DISORDERS ON MANAGEMENT

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Pharmacologic approaches to POTS should not be altered based on the presence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, but because many of these patients are prone to joint dislocation, exercise prescriptions may need adjusting.

A medical genetics consult is recommended for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Although the hypermobile type (the form most commonly associated with POTS) is not associated with aortopathy, it can be confused with classical and vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, which require serial aortic screening.³⁰

Mast cell activation syndrome

Consultation with an allergist or immunologist may help patients with severe symptoms.

Autoantibodies and autoimmunity

Treatment of the underlying disorder is recommended and can result in significantly improved POTS symptoms.

SPECIALTY CARE REFERRAL

POTS can be challenging to manage. Given the range of physiologic, emotional, and functional distress patients experience, it often requires significant physician time and multidisciplinary care. Patients with continued severe or debilitating symptoms may benefit from referral to a tertiary-care center with experience in autonomic nervous system disorders.

PROGNOSIS

Limited data are available on the long-term prognosis of POTS, and more studies are needed in pediatric and adult populations. No deaths have been reported in the handful of published cases of POTS in patients older than 50.¹ Some pediatric studies suggest that some teenagers “outgrow” their POTS. However, these data are not robust, and an alternative explanation is that as they get older, they see adult physicians for their POTS symptoms and so are lost to study follow-up.^6,44,69 

We have not often seen POTS simply resolve without ongoing treatment. However, in our experience, most patients have improved symptoms and function with multimodal treatment (ie, exercise, salt, water, stockings, and some medications) and time.

Some people, most of them relatively young women, experience lightheadedness, a racing heart, and other symptoms (but not hypotension) when they stand up, in a condition known as postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS).¹ Although not known to shorten life,¹ it can be physically and mentally debilitating.^2,3 Therapy rarely cures it, but a multifaceted approach can substantially improve quality of life.

This review outlines the evaluation and diagnosis of POTS and provides guidance for a therapy regimen.

HOW IS POTS DEFINED?

POTS is a multifactorial syndrome rather than a specific disease. It is characterized by all of the following^1,4–6:

• An increase in heart rate of ≥ 30 bpm, or ≥ 40 bpm for those under age 19, within 10 minutes of standing from a supine position
• Sustained tachycardia (> 30 seconds) 
• Absence of orthostatic hypotension (a fall in blood pressure of ≥ 20/10 mm Hg)
• Frequent and chronic duration (≥ 6 months).

These features are critical to diagnosis. Hemodynamic criteria in isolation may describe postural tachycardia but are not sufficient to diagnose POTS.

The prevalence of POTS is estimated to be between 0.2% and 1.0%,⁷ affecting up to 3 million people in the United States. Most cases arise between ages 13 and 50, with a female-to-male ratio of 5:1.⁸

MANY NAMES, SAME CONDITION

In 1871, Da Costa⁹ described a condition he called “irritable heart syndrome” that had characteristics similar to those of POTS, including extreme fatigue and exercise intolerance. Decades later, Lewis¹⁰ and Wood¹¹ provided more detailed descriptions of the disorder, renaming it “soldier’s heart” or “Da Costa syndrome.” As other cases were documented, more terms arose, including “effort syndrome” and “mitral valve prolapse syndrome.”

In 1982, Rosen and Cryer¹² were the first to use the term “postural tachycardia syndrome” for patients with disabling tachycardia upon standing without orthostatic hypotension. In 1986, Fouad et al¹³ described patients with postural tachycardia, orthostatic intolerance, and a small degree of hypotension as having “idiopathic hypovolemia.”

In 1993, Schondorf and Low¹⁴ established the current definition of POTS, leading to increased awareness and research efforts to understand its pathophysiology.

MULTIFACTORIAL PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

During the last 2 decades, several often-overlapping forms of POTS have been recognized, all of which share a final common pathway of sustained orthostatic tachycardia.^15–19 In addition, a number of common comorbidities were identified through review of large clinic populations of POTS.^20,21

Hypovolemic POTS

Up to 70% of patients with POTS have hypovolemia. The average plasma volume deficit is about 13%, which typically causes only insignificant changes in heart rate and norepinephrine levels while a patient is supine. However, blood pooling associated with upright posture further compromises cardiac output and consequently increases sympathetic nerve activity. Abnormalities in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone volume regulation system are also suspected to impair sodium retention, contributing to hypovolemia.^1,22

Neuropathic POTS

About half of patients with POTS have partial sympathetic denervation (particularly in the lower limbs) and inadequate vasoconstriction upon standing, leading to reduced venous return and stroke volume.^17,23 A compensatory increase in sympathetic tone results in tachycardia to maintain cardiac output and blood pressure.

Hyperadrenergic POTS

Up to 50% of patients with POTS have high norepinephrine levels (≥ 600 pg/mL) when upright. This subtype, hyperadrenergic POTS, is characterized by an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 10 mm Hg within 10 minutes of standing, with concomitant tachycardia that can be similar to or greater than that seen in nonhyperadrenergic POTS. Patients with hyperadrenergic POTS tend to report more prominent symptoms of sympathetic activation, such as palpitations, anxiety, and tremulousness.^24,25

Norepinephrine transporter deficiency

The norepinephrine transporter (NET) is on the presynaptic cleft of sympathetic neurons and serves to clear synaptic norepinephrine. NET deficiency leads to a hyperadrenergic state and elevated sympathetic nerve activation.¹⁸ NET deficiency may be induced by common antidepressants (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and attention-deficit disorder medications.⁴

Mast cell activation syndrome

The relationship between mast cell activation syndrome and POTS is poorly understood.^4,26 Mast cell activation syndrome has been described in a subset of patients with POTS who have sinus tachycardia accompanied by severe episodic flushing. Patients with this subtype have a hyperadrenergic response to postural change and elevated urine methylhistamine during flushing episodes.

Patients with mast cell activation syndrome tend to have strong allergic symptoms and may also have severe gastrointestinal problems, food sensitivities, dermatographism, and neuropathy. Diagnosis can be difficult, as the condition is associated with numerous markers with varying sensitivity and specificity.

Autoimmune origin

A significant minority of patients report a viral-like illness before the onset of POTS symptoms, suggesting a possible autoimmune-mediated or inflammatory cause. Also, some autoimmune disorders (eg, Sjögren syndrome) can present with a POTS-like manifestation.

Research into the role of autoantibodies in the pathophysiology of POTS offers the potential to develop novel therapeutic targets. Auto­antibodies that have been reported in POTS include those against M1 to M3 muscarinic receptors (present in over 87% of patients with POTS),²⁷ cardiac lipid raft-associated proteins,²⁸ adrenergic G-protein coupled receptors, alpha-1-adrenergic receptors, and beta-1- and beta-2-adrenergic receptors.²⁹ Although commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can assess for these antibody fragments, it is not known whether targeting the antibodies improves outcomes. At this time, antibody testing for POTS should be confined to the research setting.

LINKS TO OTHER SYNDROMES

POTS is often associated with other conditions whose symptoms cannot be explained by postural intolerance or tachycardia.

Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of inherited heterogeneous disorders involving joint hypermobility, skin hyperextensibility, and tissue fragility.³⁰ The hypermobile subtype is most commonly associated with POTS, with patients often having symptoms of autonomic dysregulation and autonomic test abnormalities.^31–33 Patients with POTS may have a history of joint subluxations, joint pain, cervical instability, and spontaneous epidural leaks. The reason for the overlap between the two syndromes is not clear.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by persistent fatigue that does not resolve with rest and is not necessarily associated with orthostatic changes. More than 75% of patients with POTS report general fatigue as a major complaint, and up to 23% meet the full criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.³⁴

A patient presenting with symptoms suggestive of POTS should first undergo a detailed history and physical examination. Other causes of sinus tachycardia should be considered. 

Detailed history, symptom review

The history should focus on determining symptom burden, including tachycardia onset, frequency, severity, and triggers; the presence of syncope; and the impact of symptoms on daily function and quality of life.

Presyncope and its associated symptoms occur in less than one-third of patients with POTS, and syncope is not a principal feature.⁴ If syncope is the predominant complaint, alternative causes should be investigated. The usual cause of syncope in the general population is thought to be vasovagal.

In addition to orthostatic intolerance, gastrointestinal disturbances are common in POTS, presenting as abdominal pain, heartburn, irregular bowel movements, diarrhea, or constipation. Symptoms of gastroparesis are less common. Gastrointestinal symptoms tend to be prolonged, lasting hours and occurring multiple times a week. They tend not to improve in the supine position.³⁵ 

POTS-associated symptoms may develop insidiously, but patients often report onset after an acute stressor such as pregnancy, major surgery, or a presumed viral illness.⁴ Whether these putative triggers are causative or coincidental is unknown. Symptoms of orthostatic intolerance tend to be exacerbated by dehydration, heat, alcohol, exercise, and menstruation.^36,37

Consider the family history: 1 in 8 patients with POTS reports familial orthostatic intolerance,³⁸ suggesting a genetic role in some patients. Inquire about symptoms or a previous diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome.

Consider other conditions

Pheochromocytoma causes hyperadrenergic symptoms (eg, palpitations, lightheadedness) like those in POTS, but patients with pheochromocytoma typically have these symptoms while supine. Pheochromocytoma is also characterized by plasma norepinephrine levels much higher than in POTS.⁴ Plasma metanephrine testing helps diagnose or rule out pheochromocytoma.⁵

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia, like pheochromocytoma, also has clinical features similar to those of POTS, as well as tachycardia present when supine. It involves higher sympathetic tone and lower parasympathetic tone compared with POTS; patients commonly have a daytime resting heart rate of at least 100 bpm or a 24-hour mean heart rate of at least 90 bpm.^1,42 While the intrinsic heart rate is heightened in inappropriate sinus tachycardia, it is not different between POTS patients and healthy individuals.^42,43 Distinguishing POTS from inappropriate sinus tachycardia is further complicated by the broad inclusion criteria of most studies of inappropriate sinus tachycardia, which failed to exclude patients with POTS.⁴⁴ The Heart Rhythm Society recently adopted distinct definitions for the 2 conditions.¹

Physical examination: Focus on vital signs

Dependent acrocyanosis—dark red-blue discoloration of the lower legs that is cold to the touch—occurs in about half of patients with POTS upon standing.⁴ Dependent acrocyanosis is associated with joint hypermobility and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, so these conditions should also be considered if findings are positive.

Laboratory testing for other causes

Laboratory testing is used mainly to detect primary causes of sinus tachycardia. Tests should include:

• Complete blood cell count with hematocrit (for severe anemia)
• Thyroid-stimulating hormone level (for hyperthyroidism)
• Electrolyte panel (for significant electrolyte disturbances).

Evidence is insufficient to support routinely measuring the vitamin B₁₂ level, iron indices, and serum markers for celiac disease, although these may be done if the history or physical examination suggests related problems.⁴ Sicca symptoms (severe dry eye or dry mouth) should trigger evaluation for Sjögren syndrome.

Electrocardiography needed

Electrocardiography should be performed to investigate for cardiac conduction abnormalities as well as for resting markers of a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. Extended ambulatory (Holter) monitoring may be useful to evaluate for a transient reentrant tachyarrhythmia⁴; however, it does not record body position, so it can be difficult to determine if detected episodes of tachycardia are related to posture.

Additional testing for select cases

Further investigation is usually not needed to diagnose POTS but should be considered in some cases. Advanced tests are typically performed at a tertiary care referral center and include: 


• Quantitative sensory testing to evaluate for small-fiber neuropathy (ie, Quantitative Sudomotor Axon Reflex Test, or QSART), which occurs in the neuropathic POTS subtype
• Formal autonomic function testing to characterize neurovascular responsiveness  
• Supine and standing plasma norepinephrine levels (fractionated catecholamines) to characterize the net activation of the sympathetic nervous system
• Blood volume assessments to assess hypovolemia 
• Formal exercise testing to objectively quantify exercise capacity.

No single universal gold-standard therapy exists for POTS, and management should be individually determined with the primary goals of treating symptoms and restoring function. A graded approach should be used, starting with conservative nonpharmacologic therapies and adding medications as needed.

While the disease course varies substantially from patient to patient, proper management is strongly associated with eventual symptom improvement.¹

NONPHARMACOLOGIC STEPS FIRST

Education

Patients should be informed of the nature of their condition and referred to appropriate healthcare personnel. POTS is a chronic illness requiring individualized coping strategies, intensive physician interaction, and support of a multidisciplinary team. Patients and family members can be reassured that most symptoms improve over time with appropriate diagnosis and treatment.¹ Patients should be advised to avoid aggravating triggers and activities.

Exercise

Exercise programs are encouraged but should be introduced gradually, as physical activity can exacerbate symptoms, especially at the outset. Several studies have reported benefits from a short-term (3-month) program, in which the patient gradually progresses from non-upright exercise (eg, rowing machine, recumbent cycle, swimming) to upright endurance exercises. At the end of these programs, significant cardiac remodeling, improved quality of life, and reduced heart rate responses to standing have been reported, and benefits have been reported to persist in patients who continued exercising after the 3-month study period.^46,47

Despite the benefits of exercise interventions, compliance is low.^46,47 To prevent early discouragement, patients should be advised that it can take 4 to 6 weeks of continued exercise before benefits appear. Patients are encouraged to exercise every other day for 30 minutes or more. Regimens should primarily focus on aerobic conditioning, but resistance training, concentrating on thigh muscles, can also help. Exercise is a treatment and not a cure, and benefits can rapidly disappear if regular activity (at least 3 times per week) is stopped.⁴⁸

Compression stockings

Compression stockings help reduce peripheral venous pooling and enhance venous return to the heart. Waist-high stockings with compression of at least 30 to 40 mm Hg offer the best results. 

Diet

Increased fluid and salt intake is advisable for patients with suspected hypovolemia. At least 2 to 3 L of water accompanied by 10 to 12 g of daily sodium intake is recommended.¹ This can usually be accomplished with diet and salt added to food, but salt tablets can be used if the patient prefers. The resultant plasma volume expansion may help reduce the reflex tachycardia upon standing.⁴⁹

Check medications

Rescue therapy with saline infusion

Intravenous saline infusion can augment blood volume in patients who are clinically decompensated and present with severe symptoms.¹ Intermittent infusion of 1 L of normal saline has been found to significantly reduce orthostatic tachycardia and related symptoms in patients with POTS, contributing to improved quality of life.^51,52

Chronic saline infusions are not recommended for long-term care because of the risk of access complications and infection.¹ Moak et al⁵³ reported a high rate of bacteremia in a cohort of children with POTS with regular saline infusions, most of whom had a central line. On the other hand, Ruzieh et al⁵⁴ reported significantly improved symptoms with regular saline infusions without a high rate of complications, but patients in this study received infusions for only a few months and through a peripheral intravenous catheter.

DRUG THERAPY

No medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Health Canada specifically for treating POTS, making all pharmacologic recommendations off-label. Although the drugs discussed below have been evaluated for POTS in controlled laboratory settings, they have yet to be tested in robust clinical trials.

Blood volume expansion

Several drugs expand blood volume, which may reduce orthostatic tachycardia.

Fludrocortisone is a synthetic aldosterone analogue that enhances sodium and water retention. Although one observational study found that it normalizes hemodynamic changes in response to orthostatic stress, no high-level evidence exists for its effectiveness for POTS.⁵⁵ It is generally well tolerated, although possible adverse effects include hyperkalemia, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, headache, and edema.^5,56

Desmopressin is a synthetic version of a natural antidiuretic hormone that increases kidney-mediated free-water reabsorption without sodium retention. It significantly reduces upright heart rate in patients with POTS and improves symptom burden. Although potential adverse effects include edema and headache, hyponatremia is the primary concern with daily use, especially with the increased water intake advised for POTS.⁵⁷ Patients should be advised to use desmopressin no more than once a week for the acute improvement of symptoms. Intermittent monitoring of serum sodium levels is recommended for safety.

Erythropoietin replacement has been suggested for treating POTS to address the significant deficit in red blood cell volume. Although erythropoietin therapy has a direct vasoconstrictive effect and largely improves red blood cell volume in patients with POTS, it does not expand plasma volume, so orthostatic tachycardia is not itself reduced.²² Nevertheless, it may significantly improve POTS symptoms refractory to more common methods of treatment, and it should be reserved for such cases. In addition to the lack of effect on orthostatic tachycardia, drawbacks to using erythropoietin include its high cost, the need for subcutaneous administration, and the risk of life-threatening complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke.^58,59

Heart rate-lowering agents

Propranolol, a nonselective beta-adrenergic antagonist, can significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptoms at low dosages (10–20 mg). Higher dosages can further restrain orthostatic tachycardia but are not as well tolerated, mainly due to hypotension and worsening of existing symptoms such as fatigue.⁶⁰ Regular-acting propranolol works for about 4 to 5 hours per dose, so full-day coverage often requires dosing 4 times per day.

Ivabradine is a selective blocker of the  “funny” (I_f) channel that reduces the sinus node firing rate without affecting blood pressure, so it slows heart rate without causing supine hypertension or orthostatic hypotension.

A retrospective case series found that 60% of patients with POTS treated with ivabradine reported symptomatic improvement, and all patients experienced reduced tachycardia with continued use.⁶¹ Ivabradine has not been compared with placebo or propranolol in a randomized controlled trial, and it has not been well studied in pregnancy and so should be avoided because of potential teratogenic effects.

When prescribing ivabradine for women of childbearing age, a negative pregnancy test may be documented prior to initiation of therapy, and the use of highly effective methods of contraception is recommended. Ivabradine should be avoided in women contemplating pregnancy. Insurance coverage can limit access to ivabradine in the United States.

Central nervous system sympatholytics

Patients with prominent hyperadrenergic features may benefit from central sympatholytic agents. However, these drugs may not be well tolerated in patients with neuropathic POTS because of the effects of reduced systemic vascular resistance⁵ and the possible exacerbation of drowsiness, fatigue, and mental clouding.⁴ Patients can be extremely sensitive to these medications, so they should initially be prescribed at the lowest dose, then gradually increased as tolerated.

Clonidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, decreases central sympathetic tone. In hyperadrenergic patients, clonidine can stabilize heart rate and blood pressure, thereby reducing orthostatic symptoms.⁶²

Methyldopa has effects similar to those of clonidine but is easier to titrate owing to its longer half-life.⁶³ Methyldopa is typically started at 125 mg at bedtime and increased to 125 mg twice daily, if tolerated.             

Midodrine is a prodrug. The active form, an alpha-1-adrenergic agonist, constricts peripheral veins and arteries to increase vascular resistance and venous return, thereby reducing orthostatic tachycardia.⁵² It is most useful in patients with impaired peripheral vasoconstriction (eg, neuropathic POTS) and may be less effective in those with hyperadrenergic POTS.⁶⁴ Major limitations of midodrine include worsening supine hypertension and possible urinary retention.³⁹

Because of midodrine’s short half-life, frequent dosing is required during daytime hours (eg, 8 AM, noon, and 4 PM), but it should not be taken within 4 to 5 hours of sleep because of the risk of supine hypertension. Midodrine is typically started at 2.5 to 5 mg per dose and can be titrated up to 15 mg per dose.

Midodrine is an FDA pregnancy category  C drug (adverse effects in pregnancy seen in animal models, but evidence lacking in humans). While ideally it should be avoided, we have used it safely in pregnant women with disabling POTS symptoms.

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, increases cardiovagal tone and possibly sympathetic tone. It has been reported to significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptom burden in patients with POTS.⁶⁵ However, pyridostigmine increases gastrointestinal mobility, leading to severe adverse effects in over 20% of patients, including abdominal cramps, nausea, and diarrhea.⁶⁶

Droxidopa, a synthetic amino acid precursor of norepinephrine, improves dizziness and fatigue in POTS with minimal effects on blood pressure.⁶⁷

Modafinil, a psychostimulant, may improve POTS-associated cognitive symptoms.⁴ It also raises upright blood pressure without significantly worsening standing heart rate or acute orthostatic symptoms.⁶⁸

EFFECTS OF COMORBID DISORDERS ON MANAGEMENT

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Pharmacologic approaches to POTS should not be altered based on the presence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, but because many of these patients are prone to joint dislocation, exercise prescriptions may need adjusting.

A medical genetics consult is recommended for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Although the hypermobile type (the form most commonly associated with POTS) is not associated with aortopathy, it can be confused with classical and vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, which require serial aortic screening.³⁰

Mast cell activation syndrome

Consultation with an allergist or immunologist may help patients with severe symptoms.

Autoantibodies and autoimmunity

Treatment of the underlying disorder is recommended and can result in significantly improved POTS symptoms.

SPECIALTY CARE REFERRAL

POTS can be challenging to manage. Given the range of physiologic, emotional, and functional distress patients experience, it often requires significant physician time and multidisciplinary care. Patients with continued severe or debilitating symptoms may benefit from referral to a tertiary-care center with experience in autonomic nervous system disorders.

PROGNOSIS

Limited data are available on the long-term prognosis of POTS, and more studies are needed in pediatric and adult populations. No deaths have been reported in the handful of published cases of POTS in patients older than 50.¹ Some pediatric studies suggest that some teenagers “outgrow” their POTS. However, these data are not robust, and an alternative explanation is that as they get older, they see adult physicians for their POTS symptoms and so are lost to study follow-up.^6,44,69 

We have not often seen POTS simply resolve without ongoing treatment. However, in our experience, most patients have improved symptoms and function with multimodal treatment (ie, exercise, salt, water, stockings, and some medications) and time.

Some people, most of them relatively young women, experience lightheadedness, a racing heart, and other symptoms (but not hypotension) when they stand up, in a condition known as postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS).¹ Although not known to shorten life,¹ it can be physically and mentally debilitating.^2,3 Therapy rarely cures it, but a multifaceted approach can substantially improve quality of life.

This review outlines the evaluation and diagnosis of POTS and provides guidance for a therapy regimen.

HOW IS POTS DEFINED?

POTS is a multifactorial syndrome rather than a specific disease. It is characterized by all of the following^1,4–6:

• An increase in heart rate of ≥ 30 bpm, or ≥ 40 bpm for those under age 19, within 10 minutes of standing from a supine position
• Sustained tachycardia (> 30 seconds) 
• Absence of orthostatic hypotension (a fall in blood pressure of ≥ 20/10 mm Hg)
• Frequent and chronic duration (≥ 6 months).

These features are critical to diagnosis. Hemodynamic criteria in isolation may describe postural tachycardia but are not sufficient to diagnose POTS.

The prevalence of POTS is estimated to be between 0.2% and 1.0%,⁷ affecting up to 3 million people in the United States. Most cases arise between ages 13 and 50, with a female-to-male ratio of 5:1.⁸

MANY NAMES, SAME CONDITION

In 1871, Da Costa⁹ described a condition he called “irritable heart syndrome” that had characteristics similar to those of POTS, including extreme fatigue and exercise intolerance. Decades later, Lewis¹⁰ and Wood¹¹ provided more detailed descriptions of the disorder, renaming it “soldier’s heart” or “Da Costa syndrome.” As other cases were documented, more terms arose, including “effort syndrome” and “mitral valve prolapse syndrome.”

In 1982, Rosen and Cryer¹² were the first to use the term “postural tachycardia syndrome” for patients with disabling tachycardia upon standing without orthostatic hypotension. In 1986, Fouad et al¹³ described patients with postural tachycardia, orthostatic intolerance, and a small degree of hypotension as having “idiopathic hypovolemia.”

In 1993, Schondorf and Low¹⁴ established the current definition of POTS, leading to increased awareness and research efforts to understand its pathophysiology.

MULTIFACTORIAL PATHOPHYSIOLOGY

During the last 2 decades, several often-overlapping forms of POTS have been recognized, all of which share a final common pathway of sustained orthostatic tachycardia.^15–19 In addition, a number of common comorbidities were identified through review of large clinic populations of POTS.^20,21

Hypovolemic POTS

Up to 70% of patients with POTS have hypovolemia. The average plasma volume deficit is about 13%, which typically causes only insignificant changes in heart rate and norepinephrine levels while a patient is supine. However, blood pooling associated with upright posture further compromises cardiac output and consequently increases sympathetic nerve activity. Abnormalities in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone volume regulation system are also suspected to impair sodium retention, contributing to hypovolemia.^1,22

Neuropathic POTS

About half of patients with POTS have partial sympathetic denervation (particularly in the lower limbs) and inadequate vasoconstriction upon standing, leading to reduced venous return and stroke volume.^17,23 A compensatory increase in sympathetic tone results in tachycardia to maintain cardiac output and blood pressure.

Hyperadrenergic POTS

Up to 50% of patients with POTS have high norepinephrine levels (≥ 600 pg/mL) when upright. This subtype, hyperadrenergic POTS, is characterized by an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 10 mm Hg within 10 minutes of standing, with concomitant tachycardia that can be similar to or greater than that seen in nonhyperadrenergic POTS. Patients with hyperadrenergic POTS tend to report more prominent symptoms of sympathetic activation, such as palpitations, anxiety, and tremulousness.^24,25

Norepinephrine transporter deficiency

The norepinephrine transporter (NET) is on the presynaptic cleft of sympathetic neurons and serves to clear synaptic norepinephrine. NET deficiency leads to a hyperadrenergic state and elevated sympathetic nerve activation.¹⁸ NET deficiency may be induced by common antidepressants (eg, tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and attention-deficit disorder medications.⁴

Mast cell activation syndrome

The relationship between mast cell activation syndrome and POTS is poorly understood.^4,26 Mast cell activation syndrome has been described in a subset of patients with POTS who have sinus tachycardia accompanied by severe episodic flushing. Patients with this subtype have a hyperadrenergic response to postural change and elevated urine methylhistamine during flushing episodes.

Patients with mast cell activation syndrome tend to have strong allergic symptoms and may also have severe gastrointestinal problems, food sensitivities, dermatographism, and neuropathy. Diagnosis can be difficult, as the condition is associated with numerous markers with varying sensitivity and specificity.

Autoimmune origin

A significant minority of patients report a viral-like illness before the onset of POTS symptoms, suggesting a possible autoimmune-mediated or inflammatory cause. Also, some autoimmune disorders (eg, Sjögren syndrome) can present with a POTS-like manifestation.

Research into the role of autoantibodies in the pathophysiology of POTS offers the potential to develop novel therapeutic targets. Auto­antibodies that have been reported in POTS include those against M1 to M3 muscarinic receptors (present in over 87% of patients with POTS),²⁷ cardiac lipid raft-associated proteins,²⁸ adrenergic G-protein coupled receptors, alpha-1-adrenergic receptors, and beta-1- and beta-2-adrenergic receptors.²⁹ Although commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can assess for these antibody fragments, it is not known whether targeting the antibodies improves outcomes. At this time, antibody testing for POTS should be confined to the research setting.

LINKS TO OTHER SYNDROMES

POTS is often associated with other conditions whose symptoms cannot be explained by postural intolerance or tachycardia.

Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of inherited heterogeneous disorders involving joint hypermobility, skin hyperextensibility, and tissue fragility.³⁰ The hypermobile subtype is most commonly associated with POTS, with patients often having symptoms of autonomic dysregulation and autonomic test abnormalities.^31–33 Patients with POTS may have a history of joint subluxations, joint pain, cervical instability, and spontaneous epidural leaks. The reason for the overlap between the two syndromes is not clear.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by persistent fatigue that does not resolve with rest and is not necessarily associated with orthostatic changes. More than 75% of patients with POTS report general fatigue as a major complaint, and up to 23% meet the full criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome.³⁴

A patient presenting with symptoms suggestive of POTS should first undergo a detailed history and physical examination. Other causes of sinus tachycardia should be considered. 

Detailed history, symptom review

The history should focus on determining symptom burden, including tachycardia onset, frequency, severity, and triggers; the presence of syncope; and the impact of symptoms on daily function and quality of life.

Presyncope and its associated symptoms occur in less than one-third of patients with POTS, and syncope is not a principal feature.⁴ If syncope is the predominant complaint, alternative causes should be investigated. The usual cause of syncope in the general population is thought to be vasovagal.

In addition to orthostatic intolerance, gastrointestinal disturbances are common in POTS, presenting as abdominal pain, heartburn, irregular bowel movements, diarrhea, or constipation. Symptoms of gastroparesis are less common. Gastrointestinal symptoms tend to be prolonged, lasting hours and occurring multiple times a week. They tend not to improve in the supine position.³⁵ 

POTS-associated symptoms may develop insidiously, but patients often report onset after an acute stressor such as pregnancy, major surgery, or a presumed viral illness.⁴ Whether these putative triggers are causative or coincidental is unknown. Symptoms of orthostatic intolerance tend to be exacerbated by dehydration, heat, alcohol, exercise, and menstruation.^36,37

Consider the family history: 1 in 8 patients with POTS reports familial orthostatic intolerance,³⁸ suggesting a genetic role in some patients. Inquire about symptoms or a previous diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and mast cell activation syndrome.

Consider other conditions

Pheochromocytoma causes hyperadrenergic symptoms (eg, palpitations, lightheadedness) like those in POTS, but patients with pheochromocytoma typically have these symptoms while supine. Pheochromocytoma is also characterized by plasma norepinephrine levels much higher than in POTS.⁴ Plasma metanephrine testing helps diagnose or rule out pheochromocytoma.⁵

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia, like pheochromocytoma, also has clinical features similar to those of POTS, as well as tachycardia present when supine. It involves higher sympathetic tone and lower parasympathetic tone compared with POTS; patients commonly have a daytime resting heart rate of at least 100 bpm or a 24-hour mean heart rate of at least 90 bpm.^1,42 While the intrinsic heart rate is heightened in inappropriate sinus tachycardia, it is not different between POTS patients and healthy individuals.^42,43 Distinguishing POTS from inappropriate sinus tachycardia is further complicated by the broad inclusion criteria of most studies of inappropriate sinus tachycardia, which failed to exclude patients with POTS.⁴⁴ The Heart Rhythm Society recently adopted distinct definitions for the 2 conditions.¹

Physical examination: Focus on vital signs

Dependent acrocyanosis—dark red-blue discoloration of the lower legs that is cold to the touch—occurs in about half of patients with POTS upon standing.⁴ Dependent acrocyanosis is associated with joint hypermobility and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, so these conditions should also be considered if findings are positive.

Laboratory testing for other causes

Laboratory testing is used mainly to detect primary causes of sinus tachycardia. Tests should include:

• Complete blood cell count with hematocrit (for severe anemia)
• Thyroid-stimulating hormone level (for hyperthyroidism)
• Electrolyte panel (for significant electrolyte disturbances).

Evidence is insufficient to support routinely measuring the vitamin B₁₂ level, iron indices, and serum markers for celiac disease, although these may be done if the history or physical examination suggests related problems.⁴ Sicca symptoms (severe dry eye or dry mouth) should trigger evaluation for Sjögren syndrome.

Electrocardiography needed

Electrocardiography should be performed to investigate for cardiac conduction abnormalities as well as for resting markers of a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. Extended ambulatory (Holter) monitoring may be useful to evaluate for a transient reentrant tachyarrhythmia⁴; however, it does not record body position, so it can be difficult to determine if detected episodes of tachycardia are related to posture.

Additional testing for select cases

Further investigation is usually not needed to diagnose POTS but should be considered in some cases. Advanced tests are typically performed at a tertiary care referral center and include: 


• Quantitative sensory testing to evaluate for small-fiber neuropathy (ie, Quantitative Sudomotor Axon Reflex Test, or QSART), which occurs in the neuropathic POTS subtype
• Formal autonomic function testing to characterize neurovascular responsiveness  
• Supine and standing plasma norepinephrine levels (fractionated catecholamines) to characterize the net activation of the sympathetic nervous system
• Blood volume assessments to assess hypovolemia 
• Formal exercise testing to objectively quantify exercise capacity.

No single universal gold-standard therapy exists for POTS, and management should be individually determined with the primary goals of treating symptoms and restoring function. A graded approach should be used, starting with conservative nonpharmacologic therapies and adding medications as needed.

While the disease course varies substantially from patient to patient, proper management is strongly associated with eventual symptom improvement.¹

NONPHARMACOLOGIC STEPS FIRST

Education

Patients should be informed of the nature of their condition and referred to appropriate healthcare personnel. POTS is a chronic illness requiring individualized coping strategies, intensive physician interaction, and support of a multidisciplinary team. Patients and family members can be reassured that most symptoms improve over time with appropriate diagnosis and treatment.¹ Patients should be advised to avoid aggravating triggers and activities.

Exercise

Exercise programs are encouraged but should be introduced gradually, as physical activity can exacerbate symptoms, especially at the outset. Several studies have reported benefits from a short-term (3-month) program, in which the patient gradually progresses from non-upright exercise (eg, rowing machine, recumbent cycle, swimming) to upright endurance exercises. At the end of these programs, significant cardiac remodeling, improved quality of life, and reduced heart rate responses to standing have been reported, and benefits have been reported to persist in patients who continued exercising after the 3-month study period.^46,47

Despite the benefits of exercise interventions, compliance is low.^46,47 To prevent early discouragement, patients should be advised that it can take 4 to 6 weeks of continued exercise before benefits appear. Patients are encouraged to exercise every other day for 30 minutes or more. Regimens should primarily focus on aerobic conditioning, but resistance training, concentrating on thigh muscles, can also help. Exercise is a treatment and not a cure, and benefits can rapidly disappear if regular activity (at least 3 times per week) is stopped.⁴⁸

Compression stockings

Compression stockings help reduce peripheral venous pooling and enhance venous return to the heart. Waist-high stockings with compression of at least 30 to 40 mm Hg offer the best results. 

Diet

Increased fluid and salt intake is advisable for patients with suspected hypovolemia. At least 2 to 3 L of water accompanied by 10 to 12 g of daily sodium intake is recommended.¹ This can usually be accomplished with diet and salt added to food, but salt tablets can be used if the patient prefers. The resultant plasma volume expansion may help reduce the reflex tachycardia upon standing.⁴⁹

Check medications

Rescue therapy with saline infusion

Intravenous saline infusion can augment blood volume in patients who are clinically decompensated and present with severe symptoms.¹ Intermittent infusion of 1 L of normal saline has been found to significantly reduce orthostatic tachycardia and related symptoms in patients with POTS, contributing to improved quality of life.^51,52

Chronic saline infusions are not recommended for long-term care because of the risk of access complications and infection.¹ Moak et al⁵³ reported a high rate of bacteremia in a cohort of children with POTS with regular saline infusions, most of whom had a central line. On the other hand, Ruzieh et al⁵⁴ reported significantly improved symptoms with regular saline infusions without a high rate of complications, but patients in this study received infusions for only a few months and through a peripheral intravenous catheter.

DRUG THERAPY

No medications are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Health Canada specifically for treating POTS, making all pharmacologic recommendations off-label. Although the drugs discussed below have been evaluated for POTS in controlled laboratory settings, they have yet to be tested in robust clinical trials.

Blood volume expansion

Several drugs expand blood volume, which may reduce orthostatic tachycardia.

Fludrocortisone is a synthetic aldosterone analogue that enhances sodium and water retention. Although one observational study found that it normalizes hemodynamic changes in response to orthostatic stress, no high-level evidence exists for its effectiveness for POTS.⁵⁵ It is generally well tolerated, although possible adverse effects include hyperkalemia, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, headache, and edema.^5,56

Desmopressin is a synthetic version of a natural antidiuretic hormone that increases kidney-mediated free-water reabsorption without sodium retention. It significantly reduces upright heart rate in patients with POTS and improves symptom burden. Although potential adverse effects include edema and headache, hyponatremia is the primary concern with daily use, especially with the increased water intake advised for POTS.⁵⁷ Patients should be advised to use desmopressin no more than once a week for the acute improvement of symptoms. Intermittent monitoring of serum sodium levels is recommended for safety.

Erythropoietin replacement has been suggested for treating POTS to address the significant deficit in red blood cell volume. Although erythropoietin therapy has a direct vasoconstrictive effect and largely improves red blood cell volume in patients with POTS, it does not expand plasma volume, so orthostatic tachycardia is not itself reduced.²² Nevertheless, it may significantly improve POTS symptoms refractory to more common methods of treatment, and it should be reserved for such cases. In addition to the lack of effect on orthostatic tachycardia, drawbacks to using erythropoietin include its high cost, the need for subcutaneous administration, and the risk of life-threatening complications such as myocardial infarction and stroke.^58,59

Heart rate-lowering agents

Propranolol, a nonselective beta-adrenergic antagonist, can significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptoms at low dosages (10–20 mg). Higher dosages can further restrain orthostatic tachycardia but are not as well tolerated, mainly due to hypotension and worsening of existing symptoms such as fatigue.⁶⁰ Regular-acting propranolol works for about 4 to 5 hours per dose, so full-day coverage often requires dosing 4 times per day.

Ivabradine is a selective blocker of the  “funny” (I_f) channel that reduces the sinus node firing rate without affecting blood pressure, so it slows heart rate without causing supine hypertension or orthostatic hypotension.

A retrospective case series found that 60% of patients with POTS treated with ivabradine reported symptomatic improvement, and all patients experienced reduced tachycardia with continued use.⁶¹ Ivabradine has not been compared with placebo or propranolol in a randomized controlled trial, and it has not been well studied in pregnancy and so should be avoided because of potential teratogenic effects.

When prescribing ivabradine for women of childbearing age, a negative pregnancy test may be documented prior to initiation of therapy, and the use of highly effective methods of contraception is recommended. Ivabradine should be avoided in women contemplating pregnancy. Insurance coverage can limit access to ivabradine in the United States.

Central nervous system sympatholytics

Patients with prominent hyperadrenergic features may benefit from central sympatholytic agents. However, these drugs may not be well tolerated in patients with neuropathic POTS because of the effects of reduced systemic vascular resistance⁵ and the possible exacerbation of drowsiness, fatigue, and mental clouding.⁴ Patients can be extremely sensitive to these medications, so they should initially be prescribed at the lowest dose, then gradually increased as tolerated.

Clonidine, an alpha-2-adrenergic agonist, decreases central sympathetic tone. In hyperadrenergic patients, clonidine can stabilize heart rate and blood pressure, thereby reducing orthostatic symptoms.⁶²

Methyldopa has effects similar to those of clonidine but is easier to titrate owing to its longer half-life.⁶³ Methyldopa is typically started at 125 mg at bedtime and increased to 125 mg twice daily, if tolerated.             

Midodrine is a prodrug. The active form, an alpha-1-adrenergic agonist, constricts peripheral veins and arteries to increase vascular resistance and venous return, thereby reducing orthostatic tachycardia.⁵² It is most useful in patients with impaired peripheral vasoconstriction (eg, neuropathic POTS) and may be less effective in those with hyperadrenergic POTS.⁶⁴ Major limitations of midodrine include worsening supine hypertension and possible urinary retention.³⁹

Because of midodrine’s short half-life, frequent dosing is required during daytime hours (eg, 8 AM, noon, and 4 PM), but it should not be taken within 4 to 5 hours of sleep because of the risk of supine hypertension. Midodrine is typically started at 2.5 to 5 mg per dose and can be titrated up to 15 mg per dose.

Midodrine is an FDA pregnancy category  C drug (adverse effects in pregnancy seen in animal models, but evidence lacking in humans). While ideally it should be avoided, we have used it safely in pregnant women with disabling POTS symptoms.

Pyridostigmine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, increases cardiovagal tone and possibly sympathetic tone. It has been reported to significantly reduce standing heart rate and improve symptom burden in patients with POTS.⁶⁵ However, pyridostigmine increases gastrointestinal mobility, leading to severe adverse effects in over 20% of patients, including abdominal cramps, nausea, and diarrhea.⁶⁶

Droxidopa, a synthetic amino acid precursor of norepinephrine, improves dizziness and fatigue in POTS with minimal effects on blood pressure.⁶⁷

Modafinil, a psychostimulant, may improve POTS-associated cognitive symptoms.⁴ It also raises upright blood pressure without significantly worsening standing heart rate or acute orthostatic symptoms.⁶⁸

EFFECTS OF COMORBID DISORDERS ON MANAGEMENT

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome

Pharmacologic approaches to POTS should not be altered based on the presence of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, but because many of these patients are prone to joint dislocation, exercise prescriptions may need adjusting.

A medical genetics consult is recommended for patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Although the hypermobile type (the form most commonly associated with POTS) is not associated with aortopathy, it can be confused with classical and vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, which require serial aortic screening.³⁰

Mast cell activation syndrome

Consultation with an allergist or immunologist may help patients with severe symptoms.

Autoantibodies and autoimmunity

Treatment of the underlying disorder is recommended and can result in significantly improved POTS symptoms.

SPECIALTY CARE REFERRAL

POTS can be challenging to manage. Given the range of physiologic, emotional, and functional distress patients experience, it often requires significant physician time and multidisciplinary care. Patients with continued severe or debilitating symptoms may benefit from referral to a tertiary-care center with experience in autonomic nervous system disorders.

PROGNOSIS

Limited data are available on the long-term prognosis of POTS, and more studies are needed in pediatric and adult populations. No deaths have been reported in the handful of published cases of POTS in patients older than 50.¹ Some pediatric studies suggest that some teenagers “outgrow” their POTS. However, these data are not robust, and an alternative explanation is that as they get older, they see adult physicians for their POTS symptoms and so are lost to study follow-up.^6,44,69 

We have not often seen POTS simply resolve without ongoing treatment. However, in our experience, most patients have improved symptoms and function with multimodal treatment (ie, exercise, salt, water, stockings, and some medications) and time.

To the Editor: I am an active primary care provider. After reading the update on human papillomavirus (HPV) in the March 2019 issue by Zhang and Batur,¹ I was hoping for some clarification on a few points.

The statement is made that up to 70% of HPV-related cervical cancer cases can be prevented with vaccination. I have pulled the reference² but cannot find supporting data for this claim. Is this proven or optimistic thinking based on the decreased incidence of abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) test results such as noted in the University of New Mexico HPV Pap registry database³? The authors do cite an additional reference⁴ documenting a decreased incidence of cervical cancer in the United States among 15- to 24-year-olds from 2003–2006 compared with 2011–2014. This study reported a 29% relative risk reduction in the group receiving the vaccine, with the absolute numbers 6 vs 8.4 cases per 1,000,000. Thus, can the authors provide further references to the statement that 70% of cervical cancers can be prevented by vaccination?

The authors also state that vaccine acceptance rates are highest when primary care providers announce that the vaccine is due rather than invite open-ended discussions. At first this shocked me, but then made me pause and wonder how often I do that—and when I do, why. I regularly do it with all the other vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. When the parent or patient asks for further information, I am armed to provide it. To date, I am struggling to provide data to educate the patient on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, particularly the claim that it will prevent 70% of cervical cancers. Are there more data that I am missing?

Finally, let me state that I am a “vaccinator”—always have been, and always will be. I discuss the HPV vaccine with my patients and their parents and try to provide data to support my recommendation. However, I am concerned that this current practice regarding the HPV vaccine has been driven by scare tactics and has now turned to “just give it because I say so.” The University of New Mexico Center for HPV prevention reports up to a 50% reduction in cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (precancer lesions) in teens.³ This is exciting information and raises hope for the future successful battle against cervical cancer. I think it is also more accurate than stating to parents and patients that we have proof that we have prevented 70% of cervical cancers. When we explain it in this manner, the majority of parents and patients buy in and, I believe, enjoy and welcome this open-ended discussion.

To the Editor: I am an active primary care provider. After reading the update on human papillomavirus (HPV) in the March 2019 issue by Zhang and Batur,¹ I was hoping for some clarification on a few points.

The statement is made that up to 70% of HPV-related cervical cancer cases can be prevented with vaccination. I have pulled the reference² but cannot find supporting data for this claim. Is this proven or optimistic thinking based on the decreased incidence of abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) test results such as noted in the University of New Mexico HPV Pap registry database³? The authors do cite an additional reference⁴ documenting a decreased incidence of cervical cancer in the United States among 15- to 24-year-olds from 2003–2006 compared with 2011–2014. This study reported a 29% relative risk reduction in the group receiving the vaccine, with the absolute numbers 6 vs 8.4 cases per 1,000,000. Thus, can the authors provide further references to the statement that 70% of cervical cancers can be prevented by vaccination?

The authors also state that vaccine acceptance rates are highest when primary care providers announce that the vaccine is due rather than invite open-ended discussions. At first this shocked me, but then made me pause and wonder how often I do that—and when I do, why. I regularly do it with all the other vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. When the parent or patient asks for further information, I am armed to provide it. To date, I am struggling to provide data to educate the patient on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, particularly the claim that it will prevent 70% of cervical cancers. Are there more data that I am missing?

Finally, let me state that I am a “vaccinator”—always have been, and always will be. I discuss the HPV vaccine with my patients and their parents and try to provide data to support my recommendation. However, I am concerned that this current practice regarding the HPV vaccine has been driven by scare tactics and has now turned to “just give it because I say so.” The University of New Mexico Center for HPV prevention reports up to a 50% reduction in cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (precancer lesions) in teens.³ This is exciting information and raises hope for the future successful battle against cervical cancer. I think it is also more accurate than stating to parents and patients that we have proof that we have prevented 70% of cervical cancers. When we explain it in this manner, the majority of parents and patients buy in and, I believe, enjoy and welcome this open-ended discussion.

To the Editor: I am an active primary care provider. After reading the update on human papillomavirus (HPV) in the March 2019 issue by Zhang and Batur,¹ I was hoping for some clarification on a few points.

The statement is made that up to 70% of HPV-related cervical cancer cases can be prevented with vaccination. I have pulled the reference² but cannot find supporting data for this claim. Is this proven or optimistic thinking based on the decreased incidence of abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) test results such as noted in the University of New Mexico HPV Pap registry database³? The authors do cite an additional reference⁴ documenting a decreased incidence of cervical cancer in the United States among 15- to 24-year-olds from 2003–2006 compared with 2011–2014. This study reported a 29% relative risk reduction in the group receiving the vaccine, with the absolute numbers 6 vs 8.4 cases per 1,000,000. Thus, can the authors provide further references to the statement that 70% of cervical cancers can be prevented by vaccination?

The authors also state that vaccine acceptance rates are highest when primary care providers announce that the vaccine is due rather than invite open-ended discussions. At first this shocked me, but then made me pause and wonder how often I do that—and when I do, why. I regularly do it with all the other vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. When the parent or patient asks for further information, I am armed to provide it. To date, I am struggling to provide data to educate the patient on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, particularly the claim that it will prevent 70% of cervical cancers. Are there more data that I am missing?

Finally, let me state that I am a “vaccinator”—always have been, and always will be. I discuss the HPV vaccine with my patients and their parents and try to provide data to support my recommendation. However, I am concerned that this current practice regarding the HPV vaccine has been driven by scare tactics and has now turned to “just give it because I say so.” The University of New Mexico Center for HPV prevention reports up to a 50% reduction in cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (precancer lesions) in teens.³ This is exciting information and raises hope for the future successful battle against cervical cancer. I think it is also more accurate than stating to parents and patients that we have proof that we have prevented 70% of cervical cancers. When we explain it in this manner, the majority of parents and patients buy in and, I believe, enjoy and welcome this open-ended discussion.

In Reply: We would like to thank Dr. Lichtenberg for giving us the opportunity to clarify and expand on questions regarding HPV vaccine efficacy.

Our statement “HPV immunization can prevent up to 70% of cases of cervical cancer due to HPV as well as 90% of genital warts” was based on a statement by Thaxton and Waxman, ie, that immunization against HPV types 16 and 18 has the potential to prevent 70% of cancers of the cervix plus a large percentage of other lower anogenital tract cancers.¹ This was meant to describe the prevention potential of the quadrivalent vaccine. The currently available Gardasil 9 targets the HPV types that account for 90% of cervical cancers,² with projected effectiveness likely to vary based on geographic variation in HPV subtypes, ranging from 86.5% in Australia to 92% in North America.³ It is difficult to precisely calculate the effectiveness of HPV vaccination alone, given that cervical cancer prevention is twofold, with primary vaccination and secondary screening (with several notable updates to US national screening guidelines during the same time frame as vaccine development).⁴

It is true that the 29% decrease in US cervical cancer incidence rates during the years 2011–2014 compared with 2003–2006 is less than the predicted 70%.⁵ However, not all eligible US females are vaccinated; according to reports from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 49% of adolescents were appropriately immunized against HPV in 2017, an increase over the rate of only 35% in 2014.⁶ Low vaccination rates undoubtedly negatively impact any benefits from herd immunity, though the exact benefits of this population immunity are difficult to quantify.⁷

In Australia, a national school-based HPV vaccination program was initiated in 2007, making the vaccine available for free. Over 70% of girls ages 12 and 13 were vaccinated, and follow-up within the same decade showed a greater than 90% reduction in genital warts, as well as a reduction in high-grade cervical lesions.⁸ In addition, the incidence of genital warts in unvaccinated heterosexual males during the prevaccination vs the vaccination period decreased by up to 81% (a marker of herd immunity).⁹

In the US, the HPV subtypes found in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased by 71% in those ages 14 to 19, within 8 years of vaccine introduction.¹⁰ An analysis of US state cancer registries between 2009 and 2012 showed that in Michigan, the rates of high-grade, precancerous lesions declined by 37% each year for women ages 15 to 19, thought to be due to changes in screening and vaccination guidelines.¹¹ Similarly, an analysis of 9 million privately insured US females showed that the presence of high-grade precancerous lesions significantly decreased between the years 2007 and 2014 in those ages 15 to 24 (vaccinated individuals), but not in those ages 25 to 39 (unvaccinated individuals).¹² Most recently, a study of 10,206 women showed a 21.9% decrease in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse lesions due to HPV subtypes 16 or 18 in those who have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine; reduced rates in unvaccinated women were also seen, representing first evidence of herd immunity in the United States.¹³ In contrast, the rates of high-grade lesions due to nonvaccine HPV subtypes remained constant. Given that progression to cervical cancer can take 10 to 15 years or longer after HPV infection, true vaccine benefits will emerge once increased vaccination rates are achieved and after at least a decade of follow-up.

We applaud Dr. Lichtenberg’s efforts to clarify vaccine efficacy for appropriate counseling, as this is key to ensuring patient trust. Immunization fears have fueled the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable illnesses across the world. Given the wave of vaccine misinformation on the Internet, we all face patients and family members skeptical of vaccine efficacy and safety. Those requesting more information deserve an honest, informed discussion with their provider. Interestingly, however, among 955 unvaccinated women, the belief of not being at risk for HPV was the most common reason for not receiving the vaccine.¹⁴ Effective education can be achieved by focusing on the personal risks of HPV to the patient, as well as the overall favorable risk vs benefits of vaccination. Quoting an exact rate of cancer reduction is likely a less effective counseling strategy, and these efficacy estimates will change as vaccination rates and HPV prevalence within the population change over time.

In Reply: We would like to thank Dr. Lichtenberg for giving us the opportunity to clarify and expand on questions regarding HPV vaccine efficacy.

Our statement “HPV immunization can prevent up to 70% of cases of cervical cancer due to HPV as well as 90% of genital warts” was based on a statement by Thaxton and Waxman, ie, that immunization against HPV types 16 and 18 has the potential to prevent 70% of cancers of the cervix plus a large percentage of other lower anogenital tract cancers.¹ This was meant to describe the prevention potential of the quadrivalent vaccine. The currently available Gardasil 9 targets the HPV types that account for 90% of cervical cancers,² with projected effectiveness likely to vary based on geographic variation in HPV subtypes, ranging from 86.5% in Australia to 92% in North America.³ It is difficult to precisely calculate the effectiveness of HPV vaccination alone, given that cervical cancer prevention is twofold, with primary vaccination and secondary screening (with several notable updates to US national screening guidelines during the same time frame as vaccine development).⁴

It is true that the 29% decrease in US cervical cancer incidence rates during the years 2011–2014 compared with 2003–2006 is less than the predicted 70%.⁵ However, not all eligible US females are vaccinated; according to reports from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 49% of adolescents were appropriately immunized against HPV in 2017, an increase over the rate of only 35% in 2014.⁶ Low vaccination rates undoubtedly negatively impact any benefits from herd immunity, though the exact benefits of this population immunity are difficult to quantify.⁷

In Australia, a national school-based HPV vaccination program was initiated in 2007, making the vaccine available for free. Over 70% of girls ages 12 and 13 were vaccinated, and follow-up within the same decade showed a greater than 90% reduction in genital warts, as well as a reduction in high-grade cervical lesions.⁸ In addition, the incidence of genital warts in unvaccinated heterosexual males during the prevaccination vs the vaccination period decreased by up to 81% (a marker of herd immunity).⁹

In the US, the HPV subtypes found in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased by 71% in those ages 14 to 19, within 8 years of vaccine introduction.¹⁰ An analysis of US state cancer registries between 2009 and 2012 showed that in Michigan, the rates of high-grade, precancerous lesions declined by 37% each year for women ages 15 to 19, thought to be due to changes in screening and vaccination guidelines.¹¹ Similarly, an analysis of 9 million privately insured US females showed that the presence of high-grade precancerous lesions significantly decreased between the years 2007 and 2014 in those ages 15 to 24 (vaccinated individuals), but not in those ages 25 to 39 (unvaccinated individuals).¹² Most recently, a study of 10,206 women showed a 21.9% decrease in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse lesions due to HPV subtypes 16 or 18 in those who have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine; reduced rates in unvaccinated women were also seen, representing first evidence of herd immunity in the United States.¹³ In contrast, the rates of high-grade lesions due to nonvaccine HPV subtypes remained constant. Given that progression to cervical cancer can take 10 to 15 years or longer after HPV infection, true vaccine benefits will emerge once increased vaccination rates are achieved and after at least a decade of follow-up.

We applaud Dr. Lichtenberg’s efforts to clarify vaccine efficacy for appropriate counseling, as this is key to ensuring patient trust. Immunization fears have fueled the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable illnesses across the world. Given the wave of vaccine misinformation on the Internet, we all face patients and family members skeptical of vaccine efficacy and safety. Those requesting more information deserve an honest, informed discussion with their provider. Interestingly, however, among 955 unvaccinated women, the belief of not being at risk for HPV was the most common reason for not receiving the vaccine.¹⁴ Effective education can be achieved by focusing on the personal risks of HPV to the patient, as well as the overall favorable risk vs benefits of vaccination. Quoting an exact rate of cancer reduction is likely a less effective counseling strategy, and these efficacy estimates will change as vaccination rates and HPV prevalence within the population change over time.

In Reply: We would like to thank Dr. Lichtenberg for giving us the opportunity to clarify and expand on questions regarding HPV vaccine efficacy.

Our statement “HPV immunization can prevent up to 70% of cases of cervical cancer due to HPV as well as 90% of genital warts” was based on a statement by Thaxton and Waxman, ie, that immunization against HPV types 16 and 18 has the potential to prevent 70% of cancers of the cervix plus a large percentage of other lower anogenital tract cancers.¹ This was meant to describe the prevention potential of the quadrivalent vaccine. The currently available Gardasil 9 targets the HPV types that account for 90% of cervical cancers,² with projected effectiveness likely to vary based on geographic variation in HPV subtypes, ranging from 86.5% in Australia to 92% in North America.³ It is difficult to precisely calculate the effectiveness of HPV vaccination alone, given that cervical cancer prevention is twofold, with primary vaccination and secondary screening (with several notable updates to US national screening guidelines during the same time frame as vaccine development).⁴

It is true that the 29% decrease in US cervical cancer incidence rates during the years 2011–2014 compared with 2003–2006 is less than the predicted 70%.⁵ However, not all eligible US females are vaccinated; according to reports from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 49% of adolescents were appropriately immunized against HPV in 2017, an increase over the rate of only 35% in 2014.⁶ Low vaccination rates undoubtedly negatively impact any benefits from herd immunity, though the exact benefits of this population immunity are difficult to quantify.⁷

In Australia, a national school-based HPV vaccination program was initiated in 2007, making the vaccine available for free. Over 70% of girls ages 12 and 13 were vaccinated, and follow-up within the same decade showed a greater than 90% reduction in genital warts, as well as a reduction in high-grade cervical lesions.⁸ In addition, the incidence of genital warts in unvaccinated heterosexual males during the prevaccination vs the vaccination period decreased by up to 81% (a marker of herd immunity).⁹

In the US, the HPV subtypes found in the quadrivalent vaccine decreased by 71% in those ages 14 to 19, within 8 years of vaccine introduction.¹⁰ An analysis of US state cancer registries between 2009 and 2012 showed that in Michigan, the rates of high-grade, precancerous lesions declined by 37% each year for women ages 15 to 19, thought to be due to changes in screening and vaccination guidelines.¹¹ Similarly, an analysis of 9 million privately insured US females showed that the presence of high-grade precancerous lesions significantly decreased between the years 2007 and 2014 in those ages 15 to 24 (vaccinated individuals), but not in those ages 25 to 39 (unvaccinated individuals).¹² Most recently, a study of 10,206 women showed a 21.9% decrease in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse lesions due to HPV subtypes 16 or 18 in those who have received at least 1 dose of the vaccine; reduced rates in unvaccinated women were also seen, representing first evidence of herd immunity in the United States.¹³ In contrast, the rates of high-grade lesions due to nonvaccine HPV subtypes remained constant. Given that progression to cervical cancer can take 10 to 15 years or longer after HPV infection, true vaccine benefits will emerge once increased vaccination rates are achieved and after at least a decade of follow-up.

We applaud Dr. Lichtenberg’s efforts to clarify vaccine efficacy for appropriate counseling, as this is key to ensuring patient trust. Immunization fears have fueled the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable illnesses across the world. Given the wave of vaccine misinformation on the Internet, we all face patients and family members skeptical of vaccine efficacy and safety. Those requesting more information deserve an honest, informed discussion with their provider. Interestingly, however, among 955 unvaccinated women, the belief of not being at risk for HPV was the most common reason for not receiving the vaccine.¹⁴ Effective education can be achieved by focusing on the personal risks of HPV to the patient, as well as the overall favorable risk vs benefits of vaccination. Quoting an exact rate of cancer reduction is likely a less effective counseling strategy, and these efficacy estimates will change as vaccination rates and HPV prevalence within the population change over time.

Cigarette smoking has been linked to the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and other genital infections including herpes simplex virus type 2, Chlamydia trachomatis, and oral and genital human papillomavirus (HPV).  Nicotine’s major metabolite, cotinine, has been found to concentrate in cervical mucus.

In 2014, researchers from Montana State University confirmed that the composition of the vaginal microbiota is “strongly associated with smoking.” They reported that women whose vaginal microbiota lacked significant numbers of Lactobacillus spp were 25-fold more likely to report current smoking than those with microbiota dominated by Lactobacillus crispatus (L crispatus). The researchers note that most Lactobacillus spp are thought to provide broad-spectrum protection to pathogenic infections by reducing vaginal pH.

But what is the mechanistic link between smoking and its effects on the vaginal microenvironment? The researchers conducted further study to assess the metabolome, a set of small molecule chemicals that includes host and microbial-produced and modified biomolecules as well as exogenous chemicals. The metabolome is an important characteristic of the vaginal microenvironment; the researchers say; differences in some metabolites are associated with functional variations of the vaginal microbiota. 

The analysis revealed samples clustered into 3 community state types (CSTs): CST-I (L crispatus dominated), CST-III (L iners dominated) and CST-IV (low Lactobacillus). Overall, smoking did not affect the vaginal metabolome after controlling for CSTs, but the researchers identified “an extensive and diverse range” of vaginal metabolites for which profiles were affected by both the microbiology and smoking status. They found 607 compounds in 36 women, including 12 metabolites that differed significantly between smokers and nonsmokers. Bacterial composition was the most pronounced driver of the vaginal metabolome, they say, associated with changes in 57% of all metabolites. As expected, nicotine, cotinine, and hydroxycotinine were markedly elevated in smokers’ vaginas.

Another “key finding,” the researchers say, was a significant increase in the abundance of various biogenic amines among smokers, far more pronounced in women with a low level of Lactobacillus. Biogenic amines are essential, they note, to mammalian and bacterial physiology. (Several are implicated in the “fishy” odor of BV.)

Their study serves as a pilot study, the researchers say, for future examinations of the connections between smoking and poor gynecologic and reproductive health outcomes.

Cigarette smoking has been linked to the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and other genital infections including herpes simplex virus type 2, Chlamydia trachomatis, and oral and genital human papillomavirus (HPV).  Nicotine’s major metabolite, cotinine, has been found to concentrate in cervical mucus.

In 2014, researchers from Montana State University confirmed that the composition of the vaginal microbiota is “strongly associated with smoking.” They reported that women whose vaginal microbiota lacked significant numbers of Lactobacillus spp were 25-fold more likely to report current smoking than those with microbiota dominated by Lactobacillus crispatus (L crispatus). The researchers note that most Lactobacillus spp are thought to provide broad-spectrum protection to pathogenic infections by reducing vaginal pH.

But what is the mechanistic link between smoking and its effects on the vaginal microenvironment? The researchers conducted further study to assess the metabolome, a set of small molecule chemicals that includes host and microbial-produced and modified biomolecules as well as exogenous chemicals. The metabolome is an important characteristic of the vaginal microenvironment; the researchers say; differences in some metabolites are associated with functional variations of the vaginal microbiota. 

The analysis revealed samples clustered into 3 community state types (CSTs): CST-I (L crispatus dominated), CST-III (L iners dominated) and CST-IV (low Lactobacillus). Overall, smoking did not affect the vaginal metabolome after controlling for CSTs, but the researchers identified “an extensive and diverse range” of vaginal metabolites for which profiles were affected by both the microbiology and smoking status. They found 607 compounds in 36 women, including 12 metabolites that differed significantly between smokers and nonsmokers. Bacterial composition was the most pronounced driver of the vaginal metabolome, they say, associated with changes in 57% of all metabolites. As expected, nicotine, cotinine, and hydroxycotinine were markedly elevated in smokers’ vaginas.

Another “key finding,” the researchers say, was a significant increase in the abundance of various biogenic amines among smokers, far more pronounced in women with a low level of Lactobacillus. Biogenic amines are essential, they note, to mammalian and bacterial physiology. (Several are implicated in the “fishy” odor of BV.)

Their study serves as a pilot study, the researchers say, for future examinations of the connections between smoking and poor gynecologic and reproductive health outcomes.

Cigarette smoking has been linked to the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and other genital infections including herpes simplex virus type 2, Chlamydia trachomatis, and oral and genital human papillomavirus (HPV).  Nicotine’s major metabolite, cotinine, has been found to concentrate in cervical mucus.

In 2014, researchers from Montana State University confirmed that the composition of the vaginal microbiota is “strongly associated with smoking.” They reported that women whose vaginal microbiota lacked significant numbers of Lactobacillus spp were 25-fold more likely to report current smoking than those with microbiota dominated by Lactobacillus crispatus (L crispatus). The researchers note that most Lactobacillus spp are thought to provide broad-spectrum protection to pathogenic infections by reducing vaginal pH.

But what is the mechanistic link between smoking and its effects on the vaginal microenvironment? The researchers conducted further study to assess the metabolome, a set of small molecule chemicals that includes host and microbial-produced and modified biomolecules as well as exogenous chemicals. The metabolome is an important characteristic of the vaginal microenvironment; the researchers say; differences in some metabolites are associated with functional variations of the vaginal microbiota. 

The analysis revealed samples clustered into 3 community state types (CSTs): CST-I (L crispatus dominated), CST-III (L iners dominated) and CST-IV (low Lactobacillus). Overall, smoking did not affect the vaginal metabolome after controlling for CSTs, but the researchers identified “an extensive and diverse range” of vaginal metabolites for which profiles were affected by both the microbiology and smoking status. They found 607 compounds in 36 women, including 12 metabolites that differed significantly between smokers and nonsmokers. Bacterial composition was the most pronounced driver of the vaginal metabolome, they say, associated with changes in 57% of all metabolites. As expected, nicotine, cotinine, and hydroxycotinine were markedly elevated in smokers’ vaginas.

Another “key finding,” the researchers say, was a significant increase in the abundance of various biogenic amines among smokers, far more pronounced in women with a low level of Lactobacillus. Biogenic amines are essential, they note, to mammalian and bacterial physiology. (Several are implicated in the “fishy” odor of BV.)

Their study serves as a pilot study, the researchers say, for future examinations of the connections between smoking and poor gynecologic and reproductive health outcomes.

Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020

2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020

3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020

4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020

5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020

2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020

3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020

4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020

5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020

2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020

3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020

4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020

5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

The clinical scenario is as follows: A 62-year-old woman comes to see me for a new diagnosis of grade 1 endometrial cancer. She has a normal body mass index of 24 kg/m², a history of four prior full-term pregnancies, no family history of malignancy, and no medical comorbidities. She is otherwise a specimen of good health, and has no clear identifiable risk factors for this malignancy. She then reports that she transitioned through menopause at age 52 years and developed severe hot flashes with sleep and mood disturbance. She did not wish to take conventional hormone replacement therapy (HT) because she had heard it causes cancer. She subsequently researched the Internet and found a provider who has been prescribing compounded bioidentical hormone therapy (CBHT) for her for the past 10 years. She submits saliva for testing of her estrogen levels, and the provider uses this data to compound the appropriate doses of “natural” estrogens and testosterone for her which she applies via vaginal or transdermal creams. She has been prescribed a progesterone suppository, but she doesn’t always take that because she doesn’t notice that it has any effect on how she feels. “Doctor, did my bioidentical hormones give me this uterine cancer?”

Alexander Raths/Fotolia

My answer is, of course, I don’t know. Cancer is a complex disease with a complex array of causative and promoting factors. However, we do know that taking estrogen unopposed with adequate progesterone can cause the development of uterine cancer and its precursor state.¹ If those bioidentical estrogens were effective at controlling her menopausal symptoms, they likely were effective at stimulating her endometrium at the same time.

What are compounded bioidentical hormones?

The term “bioidentical” refers to having the same molecular structure as that which is found in the human body. Examples of bioidentical estrogens include 17-beta-estradiol, estrone, and estriol – which are produced from yams and soy. Micronized progesterone is an example of a bioidentical progesterone. Many of these drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and prescribed and dispensed by conventional pharmacies.

An alternative, and increasingly popular, version of bioidentical hormones are CBHs. It should be recognized that this is a marketing, and not a scientific, term. These products utilize hormones, in some cases FDA-approved bioidentical hormones, that are broken down and blended by specialized pharmacies and reconstituted (compounded) into different, and sometimes “customized,” dosing and delivery methods (such as capsules, patches, gels, creams, lozenges, suppositories). Frequently used compounded products utilize multiple formulations of estrogens in doublets and triplets as well as progesterone, testosterone, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

How do they differ from synthetic hormones?

Distributors of CBHs state that they differ from conventional HT (synthetic and bioidentical) because of the customization process from which they promise greater efficacy and a sense of personalized medicine. The distributors frequently utilize assays from saliva, blood, vaginal secretions, and urine to measure a woman’s hormone levels, and titrate her compounded formulation based on those results. It should be noted that there is no data to support that titration of hormones to blood, salivary, or urine levels is efficacious or ensures greater safety than titration based on symptom management.

Critics of CBHT, which includes the North American Menopause Society² and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,³ highlight that the main difference between CBHT and HT is lack of FDA regulation over the CBHT industry. Many of these agents are delivered transdermally and therefore are classified as “dietary supplements.” As such, they do not require FDA regulation or proof of safety or efficacy.

What drives patients’ decision to use compounded bioidentical hormones?

After the Womens’ Health Initiative study was published in 2002⁵, all FDA-regulated estrogen preparations were required to carry specific warnings, particularly in relation to the increased risk for MI, venous thromboembolic events, and breast cancer. There was a clear uptake in use of CBHT after this study was reported. By avoiding FDA regulations, distributors of CBHTs may have avoided providing Womens’ Health Initiative information to patients. The absence of an insert with a written warning, in and of itself, makes these preparations seem safer to the patient.

But is it entirely a lack of information that drives demand for CBHTs? Surveys of current or former users suggest the motivations are more complex than that. A survey of 21 past or present CBHT users inquired about reasons for use of CBHT over conventional HT.⁶ Their responses were categorized as either push motivations away from conventional therapy versus pull motivations toward CBHT. About 95% of current and former users cited distrust of the biomedicine and pharmaceutical industry as reasons for use of CBHT. Fear about the safety of conventional HT, particularly with respect to cancer risk, also was strongly cited at 81%. Motivations pulling toward CBHT included its efficacy (76%) and perception that CBHT is “safer” than conventional HT (76%).

Women in this study also appreciated the tailored, individualized approach that often is associated with CBHT, in which providers spend long consultations discussing individual patient needs and concerns. They enjoy the idea of a customized blend that is created, as opposed to a standard dosing regimen, and intuitively trust the reliability of blood and saliva testing as a prescriptive tool.

Are bioidentical hormones safe with respect to cancer risk?

Hormones themselves are not inert substances, including those derived in vivo and those from plants. They have powerful effects in the human body and can promote malignant transformation or proliferation, alter metabolic pathways, stimulate vascular tone, influence coagulation pathways, along with many other effects. A hormone’s potential for deleterious effect can be present regardless of how that hormone is synthesized, procured, or prepared. While there are no data to suggest that CBHT is associated with increased cancer risk, compared with conventional HT, there are by no means any data to suggest it is safer. Unopposed compounded estrogens place women at increased risk for endometrial cancers, and the prolonged use of hormonal therapy, compounded or otherwise, after menopause increases the risk for breast cancer.

How should we counsel patients?

Patients who desire compounded bioidentical hormone preparations should be counseled that little is known about the safety of these preparations, compared with conventional hormone preparations. The fact that the components are often plant based rather than synthetic does not inherently alter their potential negative impact on biologic pathways. Patients should be educated regarding the difference between FDA-regulated products and nonregulated products so that they can understand that lack of a boxed warning on a non-FDA regulated product does not mean an absence of risk. Women should be informed of the potential inaccuracies in dosing and strength of the CBH preparations they receive.

We should recognize that our patients strongly desire a relationship with their provider in which they are listened to, understood, and treated as individuals. If conversations regarding hormone use are approached with these principles, we will optimize the likelihood our patients are receptive to the highest quality information and not pulled in the direction of unregulated products.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She reported that she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References:

1. Maturitas. 2014 Jan;77(1):4-6.

2. Menopause. 2014 Dec;21(12):1298-300.

3. Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):308-12.

4. Report: Limited FDA survey of compounded drug products (Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009).

5. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.

6. BMC Womens Health. 2017 Oct 2;17(1):97.

LOS ANGELES – In patients with end-stage renal disease, women older than 50 years have a significantly higher mortality, compared with their male counterparts, results from an analysis of national data showed.

“The racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence, treatment, risks, and outcomes of [hypertension] in patients with CKD [chronic kidney disease], are well recognized,” the study’s senior author, Ricardo Correa, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Whites have better control of blood pressure, compared with Hispanics or African Americans with CKD, for example. On the other hand, gender differences in the outcome of blood pressure control and mortality across the different CKD stages have been very poorly studied, with conflicting results.”

The importance of gender difference has been mostly the focus in cardiovascular diseases, he continued, with compelling data revealing a higher incidence in men than in women of similar age, and a menopause-associated increase in cardiovascular disease in women.

“Whether the same can be said for hypertension, remains to be elucidated,” said Dr. Correa, an endocrinologist who directs the diabetes and metabolism fellowship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix.

In what he said is the first study of its kind, Dr. Correa and his colleagues set out to determine if gender in the U.S. population and menopausal age affect the inpatient survival rate in hypertensive patients across different stages of CKD. They drew from the 2005-2012 National Inpatient Sample to identify 2,121,750 hospitalized hypertensive patients and compared a number of factors between men and women, including crude mortality and mortality per CKD stage, menopausal age, length of stay, and total hospital charges.

Of the 2,121,750 patients, 1,092,931 (52%) were men and 1,028,819 (48%) were women; their mean age was 65 years. Among women, 32% had stage 3 CKD, 15% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 54% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Among men, 33% had stage 3 CKD, 13% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 51% had ESRD. The researchers observed that in-hospital crude mortality was significantly higher for men, compared with a matched group of women at CKD stages 3 and 4 (3.09% vs. 3.29% for CDK 3; P less than .0001 and 4.05% vs. 4.36% for CDK 4; P = .0004), yet was nonsignificant among those with ESRD (4.68% vs. 4.83%; P = .45).

“One could hypothesize that cardiac remodeling in hemodialysis women may be different than that in hemodialysis men to the extent that it affects mortality,” Dr. Correa said. “However, it is unclear if the survival benefit for dialysis men is owing to the possibility of a selection bias or not. Dialysis women may not be receiving equal access to cardiovascular procedures or surgical interventions (arteriovenous fistula, for example) or women may not be offered adequate hemodialysis to the same extent as men are. Further investigations regarding sex-based differences in dialysis treatment are required.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design. “We lacked detailed information regarding the cause of death, dialysis efficiency, types of dialysis accesses, and left ventricular hypertrophy measurements. We did not account for transitions between different hemodialysis modalities [and] we do not have information about distances or traveling time to dialysis units.”

The study’s first author was Kelvin Tran, MD. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In patients with end-stage renal disease, women older than 50 years have a significantly higher mortality, compared with their male counterparts, results from an analysis of national data showed.

“The racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence, treatment, risks, and outcomes of [hypertension] in patients with CKD [chronic kidney disease], are well recognized,” the study’s senior author, Ricardo Correa, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Whites have better control of blood pressure, compared with Hispanics or African Americans with CKD, for example. On the other hand, gender differences in the outcome of blood pressure control and mortality across the different CKD stages have been very poorly studied, with conflicting results.”

The importance of gender difference has been mostly the focus in cardiovascular diseases, he continued, with compelling data revealing a higher incidence in men than in women of similar age, and a menopause-associated increase in cardiovascular disease in women.

“Whether the same can be said for hypertension, remains to be elucidated,” said Dr. Correa, an endocrinologist who directs the diabetes and metabolism fellowship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix.

In what he said is the first study of its kind, Dr. Correa and his colleagues set out to determine if gender in the U.S. population and menopausal age affect the inpatient survival rate in hypertensive patients across different stages of CKD. They drew from the 2005-2012 National Inpatient Sample to identify 2,121,750 hospitalized hypertensive patients and compared a number of factors between men and women, including crude mortality and mortality per CKD stage, menopausal age, length of stay, and total hospital charges.

Of the 2,121,750 patients, 1,092,931 (52%) were men and 1,028,819 (48%) were women; their mean age was 65 years. Among women, 32% had stage 3 CKD, 15% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 54% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Among men, 33% had stage 3 CKD, 13% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 51% had ESRD. The researchers observed that in-hospital crude mortality was significantly higher for men, compared with a matched group of women at CKD stages 3 and 4 (3.09% vs. 3.29% for CDK 3; P less than .0001 and 4.05% vs. 4.36% for CDK 4; P = .0004), yet was nonsignificant among those with ESRD (4.68% vs. 4.83%; P = .45).

“One could hypothesize that cardiac remodeling in hemodialysis women may be different than that in hemodialysis men to the extent that it affects mortality,” Dr. Correa said. “However, it is unclear if the survival benefit for dialysis men is owing to the possibility of a selection bias or not. Dialysis women may not be receiving equal access to cardiovascular procedures or surgical interventions (arteriovenous fistula, for example) or women may not be offered adequate hemodialysis to the same extent as men are. Further investigations regarding sex-based differences in dialysis treatment are required.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design. “We lacked detailed information regarding the cause of death, dialysis efficiency, types of dialysis accesses, and left ventricular hypertrophy measurements. We did not account for transitions between different hemodialysis modalities [and] we do not have information about distances or traveling time to dialysis units.”

The study’s first author was Kelvin Tran, MD. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In patients with end-stage renal disease, women older than 50 years have a significantly higher mortality, compared with their male counterparts, results from an analysis of national data showed.

“The racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence, treatment, risks, and outcomes of [hypertension] in patients with CKD [chronic kidney disease], are well recognized,” the study’s senior author, Ricardo Correa, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Whites have better control of blood pressure, compared with Hispanics or African Americans with CKD, for example. On the other hand, gender differences in the outcome of blood pressure control and mortality across the different CKD stages have been very poorly studied, with conflicting results.”

The importance of gender difference has been mostly the focus in cardiovascular diseases, he continued, with compelling data revealing a higher incidence in men than in women of similar age, and a menopause-associated increase in cardiovascular disease in women.

“Whether the same can be said for hypertension, remains to be elucidated,” said Dr. Correa, an endocrinologist who directs the diabetes and metabolism fellowship at the University of Arizona in Phoenix.

In what he said is the first study of its kind, Dr. Correa and his colleagues set out to determine if gender in the U.S. population and menopausal age affect the inpatient survival rate in hypertensive patients across different stages of CKD. They drew from the 2005-2012 National Inpatient Sample to identify 2,121,750 hospitalized hypertensive patients and compared a number of factors between men and women, including crude mortality and mortality per CKD stage, menopausal age, length of stay, and total hospital charges.

Of the 2,121,750 patients, 1,092,931 (52%) were men and 1,028,819 (48%) were women; their mean age was 65 years. Among women, 32% had stage 3 CKD, 15% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 54% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Among men, 33% had stage 3 CKD, 13% had stage 4 disease, 3% had stage 5 CKD, and 51% had ESRD. The researchers observed that in-hospital crude mortality was significantly higher for men, compared with a matched group of women at CKD stages 3 and 4 (3.09% vs. 3.29% for CDK 3; P less than .0001 and 4.05% vs. 4.36% for CDK 4; P = .0004), yet was nonsignificant among those with ESRD (4.68% vs. 4.83%; P = .45).

“One could hypothesize that cardiac remodeling in hemodialysis women may be different than that in hemodialysis men to the extent that it affects mortality,” Dr. Correa said. “However, it is unclear if the survival benefit for dialysis men is owing to the possibility of a selection bias or not. Dialysis women may not be receiving equal access to cardiovascular procedures or surgical interventions (arteriovenous fistula, for example) or women may not be offered adequate hemodialysis to the same extent as men are. Further investigations regarding sex-based differences in dialysis treatment are required.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its observational design. “We lacked detailed information regarding the cause of death, dialysis efficiency, types of dialysis accesses, and left ventricular hypertrophy measurements. We did not account for transitions between different hemodialysis modalities [and] we do not have information about distances or traveling time to dialysis units.”

The study’s first author was Kelvin Tran, MD. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Two federal judges have temporarily barred the Trump administration from making changes to the Title X program that would restrict funding from clinics that provide abortion counseling or that refer patients for abortion services.

jsmith/iStockphoto

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian for the District of Eastern Washington on April 25 approved a temporary nationwide ban against the program changes in response to legal a challenge by Washington state. The same day, U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane also preliminarily barred the restrictions from taking effect in response to a legal challenge by the American Medical Association and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Judge McShane called the program restrictions “arbitrary and capricious,” and wrote that the rules ignore comprehensive, ethical, and evidence-based health care, and impermissibly interfere with the patient-doctor relationship. Judge Bastian agreed, writing in his order that the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the restrictions violate the central purpose of Title X, which is to equalize access to comprehensive, evidence-based, and voluntary family planning.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction by presenting facts and argument that the final rule may or likely will: seriously disrupt or destroy the existing network of Title X providers in both the State of Washington and throughout the entire nation,” Judge Bastian wrote in his order.

Changes to the Title X program – scheduled to take effect May 3 – would have made health clinics ineligible for Title X funding if they offer, promote, or support abortion as a method of family planning. Title X grants generally go to health centers that provide reproductive health care – such as STD-testing, cancer screenings, and contraception – to low-income families. Under the rule, the government would withdraw financial assistance to clinics if they allow counseling or referrals associated with abortion, regardless of whether the money is used for other health care services.

HHS officials said that the final rule will provide for clear financial and physical separation between Title X and non–Title X activities, reduce confusion on the part of Title X clinics and the public about permissible Title X activities, and improve program transparency by requiring more complete reporting by grantees about their partnerships with referral agencies.

Two federal judges have temporarily barred the Trump administration from making changes to the Title X program that would restrict funding from clinics that provide abortion counseling or that refer patients for abortion services.

jsmith/iStockphoto

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian for the District of Eastern Washington on April 25 approved a temporary nationwide ban against the program changes in response to legal a challenge by Washington state. The same day, U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane also preliminarily barred the restrictions from taking effect in response to a legal challenge by the American Medical Association and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Judge McShane called the program restrictions “arbitrary and capricious,” and wrote that the rules ignore comprehensive, ethical, and evidence-based health care, and impermissibly interfere with the patient-doctor relationship. Judge Bastian agreed, writing in his order that the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the restrictions violate the central purpose of Title X, which is to equalize access to comprehensive, evidence-based, and voluntary family planning.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction by presenting facts and argument that the final rule may or likely will: seriously disrupt or destroy the existing network of Title X providers in both the State of Washington and throughout the entire nation,” Judge Bastian wrote in his order.

Changes to the Title X program – scheduled to take effect May 3 – would have made health clinics ineligible for Title X funding if they offer, promote, or support abortion as a method of family planning. Title X grants generally go to health centers that provide reproductive health care – such as STD-testing, cancer screenings, and contraception – to low-income families. Under the rule, the government would withdraw financial assistance to clinics if they allow counseling or referrals associated with abortion, regardless of whether the money is used for other health care services.

HHS officials said that the final rule will provide for clear financial and physical separation between Title X and non–Title X activities, reduce confusion on the part of Title X clinics and the public about permissible Title X activities, and improve program transparency by requiring more complete reporting by grantees about their partnerships with referral agencies.

Two federal judges have temporarily barred the Trump administration from making changes to the Title X program that would restrict funding from clinics that provide abortion counseling or that refer patients for abortion services.

jsmith/iStockphoto

U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian for the District of Eastern Washington on April 25 approved a temporary nationwide ban against the program changes in response to legal a challenge by Washington state. The same day, U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane also preliminarily barred the restrictions from taking effect in response to a legal challenge by the American Medical Association and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Judge McShane called the program restrictions “arbitrary and capricious,” and wrote that the rules ignore comprehensive, ethical, and evidence-based health care, and impermissibly interfere with the patient-doctor relationship. Judge Bastian agreed, writing in his order that the plaintiffs have demonstrated that the restrictions violate the central purpose of Title X, which is to equalize access to comprehensive, evidence-based, and voluntary family planning.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction by presenting facts and argument that the final rule may or likely will: seriously disrupt or destroy the existing network of Title X providers in both the State of Washington and throughout the entire nation,” Judge Bastian wrote in his order.

Changes to the Title X program – scheduled to take effect May 3 – would have made health clinics ineligible for Title X funding if they offer, promote, or support abortion as a method of family planning. Title X grants generally go to health centers that provide reproductive health care – such as STD-testing, cancer screenings, and contraception – to low-income families. Under the rule, the government would withdraw financial assistance to clinics if they allow counseling or referrals associated with abortion, regardless of whether the money is used for other health care services.

HHS officials said that the final rule will provide for clear financial and physical separation between Title X and non–Title X activities, reduce confusion on the part of Title X clinics and the public about permissible Title X activities, and improve program transparency by requiring more complete reporting by grantees about their partnerships with referral agencies.