Women's Health

A 35-year-old woman is admitted to the hospital with a 5-day history of abdominal distention and jaundice. She reports no history of fever, chills, night sweats, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes in urine color, change in stool color, weight loss, weight gain, or loss of appetite.

She is petite, with a body mass index of 19.4 kg/m². She has no known history of medical conditions or surgery and is not taking any medications. Her family history is unremarkable, and she denies current or past tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use.

RECENT TRAVEL

She says that during a trip to Central America several months ago, she had suffered a seizure and was taken to a local hospital, where laboratory testing revealed elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. She says that the rest of the workup at that time was normal.

About 1 week after that incident, she returned home and saw her primary care physician, who ordered further testing, which showed mild hyperbilirubinemia and mild elevation of AST and ALT levels. Her physician attributed the elevations to atovaquone, which she had been taking for malaria prophylaxis, as repeat testing 2 weeks later showed improvement in AST and ALT levels.

The patient says she returned to her normal state of health until about 5 days ago, when she noticed jaundice and abdominal distention, but without abdominal pain, dark urine, or clay-colored stools. She became concerned and went to her local hospital. Testing there noted mild elevation of AST and ALT, as well as an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and hyperbilirubinemia. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed hepatomegaly with possible fatty liver. Because of these results, the patient was transferred to our institution for further evaluation.

EVALUATION AT OUR INSTITUTION

On examination at our institution, she is afebrile, and vital signs are within normal ranges. She has bilateral scleral icterus and diffuse jaundice, but no other skin finding such as rash or spider angioma. She has no lymphadenopathy. Her abdomen is distended, with tense ascites, and her liver is tender to palpation. The tip of the spleen is not palpable.

The cardiovascular examination reveals no murmurs, rubs, or gallops, but she has jugular venous distention and +2 pitting edema of both lower extremities.

On respiratory examination, there is dullness to percussion, with slight crackles on auscultation at the right lung base. The neurologic examination is normal.

Table 1 shows the results of initial laboratory testing.

1. Which study would provide the most information on the cause of ascites?

• Abdominal ultrasonography
• Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis
• Chest radiography
• Echocardiography
• Urine protein-to-creatinine ratio

Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis is the essential study for any patient with clinically apparent new-onset ascites.^1–3 It is the study that provides the most information on the cause of ascites.

In our patient, abdominal paracentesis yields 1,000 mL of straw-colored ascitic fluid, and analysis shows 86 nucleated cells, 28 of which are polymorphonuclear cells, and 0 red blood cells, with negative Gram stain and culture. The ascitic albumin level is 0.85 g/dL, with an ascitic protein of 1.1 g/dL.

Abdominal ultrasonography shows a diffusely echogenic liver, no focal lesions, moderate ascites, normal portal vein flow, no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary duct dilation, normal kidney sizes, no hydronephrosis, and no intra-abdominal mass. Chest radiography is clear with no sign of consolidation, edema, or effusion. Echocardiography shows a normal left ventricular ejection fraction with no valvular disease or pericardial effusion. A random urine protein-creatinine ratio is normal at 0.1 (reference range < 0.2).

2. What is the most likely cause of her ascites based on the workup to this point?

• Cirrhosis
• Heart failure
• Nephrotic syndrome
• Portal vein thrombus
• Abdominal malignancy
• Malaria

An initial approach to ascitic fluid analysis is to calculate the serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG). The SAAG is calculated as the serum albumin level minus the ascitic fluid albumin level.^4,5 This is useful in determining the cause of the ascites (Figure 1).^4,5 A gradient of 1.1 g/dL or higher indicates portal hypertension.^4,5

Common causes of portal hypertension include cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, heart failure, vascular occlusion syndromes (eg, Budd-Chiari syndrome, portal vein thrombosis), idiopathic portal fibrosis, and metastatic liver disease.^5,6

If portal hypertension is present based on the SAAG, the next step is to review the ascitic protein level to help distinguish between a hepatic and a cardiac etiology of the ascites. An ascitic protein level less than 2.5 g/dL indicates a primary liver pathology (eg, cirrhosis). An ascitic protein level of 2.5 g/dL or greater typically indicates a cardiac condition (eg, heart failure, pericardial disease) with secondary congestive hepatopathy.^5,6

If the SAAG is less than 1.1 g/dL, the ascites is likely not from portal hypertension. Typical causes of a low SAAG include infection, malignancy, pancreatic ascites, and nephrotic syndrome.^5,6

In our patient, the SAAG is 1.35 g/dL (2.2 g/dL minus 0.85 g/dL), ie, elevated and due to portal hypertension. With an SAAG of 1.1 g/dL or greater and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 2.5 g/dL, as in our patient, the most likely cause is cirrhosis.

Heart failure is unlikely based on her normal brain natriuretic peptide level, an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.5 g/dL, and normal results on echocardiography. Nephrotic syndrome is also very unlikely based on the patient’s normal random urine protein-creatinine ratio. Portal vein thrombus and abdominal malignancy are essentially ruled out by the negative results of Doppler abdominal ultrasonography, with normal venous flow and no intra-abdominal mass and coupled with an elevated SAAG.

Although the patient has a history of travel, the incubation period for malaria would not fit the time frame of presentation. Also, she did not have typical malarial symptoms, her rapid malaria test was negative, and a peripheral blood smear for blood parasites was negative. It should be noted, however, that Plasmodium malariae infection classically presents with flulike symptoms and can resemble nephrotic syndrome, including peripheral edema, ascites, heavy proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and hyperlipidemia.⁷

3. In which patients is antibiotic prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) appropriate?

• Any patient with cirrhosis
• Any patient with cirrhosis who is hospitalized
• Any patient with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.0 g/dL
• Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP

Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP should receive prophylactic antibiotics,⁸ as should any patient deemed at high risk of SBP. It is indicated in the following patients:

• Patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding^9,10
• Patients with cirrhosis and a previous episode of SBP⁸
• Patients with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 1.5 g/dL with either impaired renal function (creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dL, blood urea nitrogen level ≥ 25 mg/dL, or serum sodium ≤ 130 mmol/L) or liver failure (Child-Pugh score ≥ 9 and a bilirubin ≥ 3 mg/dL)⁹
• Patients with cirrhosis who are hospitalized for other reasons and have an ascitic protein level < 1.0 g/dL.⁹

Our patient has no signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of SBP. Her ascitic fluid protein level is 1.1 g/dL, and she has normal renal function. However, her Child-Pugh score is 12 (3 points for total bilirubin > 3 mg/dL, 3 points for serum albumin < 2.8 g/dL, 2 points for an INR 1.7 to 2.2, 3 points for moderate ascites, and 1 point for no encephalopathy), with a bilirubin of 17.0 mg/dL. Based on this, she is placed on antibiotic prophylaxis for SBP.

Our patient then undergoes an extensive workup for liver disease. Results of tests for toxins, autoimmune diseases, and inheritable diseases are all within normal limits. At this point, despite the patient’s reported negative alcohol history, our leading diagnosis is alcoholic hepatitis.

To confirm this diagnosis, she subsequently undergoes transjugular liver biopsy, considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis. During the procedure, the hepatic venous pressure gradient is measured at 18 mm Hg (reference range 1–5 mm Hg), suggestive of portal hypertension. The pathology study shows severe fatty change, active steatohepatitis with ballooning degeneration, easily identifiable Mallory-Denk bodies, and prominent neutrophilic infiltration, as well as extensive bridging fibrosis (Figure 2). These findings point to alcoholic hepatitis.

After the biopsy results, we speak with the patient further about her alcohol habits. At this point, she informs us that she has consumed significant amounts of alcohol since the age of 18 (6 to 12 alcoholic beverages per day, including beer and hard liquor). Therefore, based on this new information, on her jaundice and ascites, and on results of laboratory testing and biopsy, we confirmed our diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis.

4. When is drug treatment appropriate for alcoholic hepatitis?

• Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score greater than 12
• MELD score greater than 15
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 25
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32
• Glasgow score greater than 5
• Glasgow score greater than 7

The best answer is a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32. A variety of scoring systems have been used to assess the severity of alcoholic hepatitis and to guide treatment, including the Maddrey Discriminant Function score, the MELD score, and the Glasgow score.^11–16 They share similar laboratory values in their calculations, including prothrombin time (or INR) and total bilirubin.^11–16 Typically, a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32, a Glasgow score of greater than 9, or a MELD score greater than 21 is used to determine whether pharmacologic treatment is indicated.^11–16

The typical treatment is prednisolone or pentoxifylline.^11,17–21 The Lille score is designed to help decide whether to stop corticosteroids after 1 week of administration due to lack of treatment response.²² It predicts mortality rates within 6 months; a score of 0.45 or less indicates a good prognosis, and corticosteroid therapy should continue for 28 days (Figure 3).²²

Our patient’s discriminant function score is 50, her Glasgow score is 10, and her MELD score is 28; thus, she begins treatment with oral prednisolone. Her Lille score at 1 week is 0.119, indicating a good prognosis, and her corticosteroids are continued for a total of 28 days.

It should be highlighted that the most important treatment is abstinence from alcohol.¹¹ Recent literature suggests that any benefit of prednisolone or pentoxifylline in terms of mortality rates is questionable,^19–20 and there is evidence that giving both drugs simultaneously may improve mortality rates,^11,21 but the evidence remains conflicting at this time.

ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS

Alcoholic hepatitis is a clinical syndrome of jaundice and liver failure, often in the setting of heavy alcohol use for decades.^11,12 The incidence is unknown, but the typical age of presentation is between 40 and 50.^11,12 The chief sign is a rapid onset of jaundice (< 3 months); common signs and symptoms include fever, ascites, proximal muscle loss, and an enlarged, tender liver.¹² Encephalopathy may be seen in severe alcoholic hepatitis.¹²

Our patient is 35 years old. She has jaundice with rapid onset, as well as ascites and a tender liver.

The diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis must take into account the patient’s history, physical examination, and laboratory findings. Until proven otherwise, the diagnosis should be presumed in the following scenario: ascites and jaundice on examination (usually with a duration < 3 months); a history of heavy alcohol use; neutrophilic leukocytosis; an AST level that is elevated but below 300 U/L; an ALT level above the normal range but below 300 U/L; an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2; a total serum bilirubin level above 5 mg/dL; and an elevated INR.^11,12 Liver biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis. Though not routinely done because of risks associated with the procedure, it may help confirm the diagnosis if it is in question.

CASE CONCLUDED

We start our patient on oral prednisolone 40 mg daily for alcoholic hepatitis. Her symptoms and laboratory testing results including bilirubin improve. Her Lille score at 7 days indicates a good prognosis, prompting continuation of corticosteroid treatment for the full 28 days.

She is referred to an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program and has remained sober as of the last outpatient note.

Alcoholic hepatitis is extremely difficult to diagnose, and no single blood test or imaging study confirms the diagnosis. The history, physical examination findings, and laboratory findings are crucial. If the diagnosis is still in doubt, liver biopsy may help confirm the diagnosis.

A 35-year-old woman is admitted to the hospital with a 5-day history of abdominal distention and jaundice. She reports no history of fever, chills, night sweats, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes in urine color, change in stool color, weight loss, weight gain, or loss of appetite.

She is petite, with a body mass index of 19.4 kg/m². She has no known history of medical conditions or surgery and is not taking any medications. Her family history is unremarkable, and she denies current or past tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use.

RECENT TRAVEL

She says that during a trip to Central America several months ago, she had suffered a seizure and was taken to a local hospital, where laboratory testing revealed elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. She says that the rest of the workup at that time was normal.

About 1 week after that incident, she returned home and saw her primary care physician, who ordered further testing, which showed mild hyperbilirubinemia and mild elevation of AST and ALT levels. Her physician attributed the elevations to atovaquone, which she had been taking for malaria prophylaxis, as repeat testing 2 weeks later showed improvement in AST and ALT levels.

The patient says she returned to her normal state of health until about 5 days ago, when she noticed jaundice and abdominal distention, but without abdominal pain, dark urine, or clay-colored stools. She became concerned and went to her local hospital. Testing there noted mild elevation of AST and ALT, as well as an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and hyperbilirubinemia. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed hepatomegaly with possible fatty liver. Because of these results, the patient was transferred to our institution for further evaluation.

EVALUATION AT OUR INSTITUTION

On examination at our institution, she is afebrile, and vital signs are within normal ranges. She has bilateral scleral icterus and diffuse jaundice, but no other skin finding such as rash or spider angioma. She has no lymphadenopathy. Her abdomen is distended, with tense ascites, and her liver is tender to palpation. The tip of the spleen is not palpable.

The cardiovascular examination reveals no murmurs, rubs, or gallops, but she has jugular venous distention and +2 pitting edema of both lower extremities.

On respiratory examination, there is dullness to percussion, with slight crackles on auscultation at the right lung base. The neurologic examination is normal.

Table 1 shows the results of initial laboratory testing.

1. Which study would provide the most information on the cause of ascites?

• Abdominal ultrasonography
• Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis
• Chest radiography
• Echocardiography
• Urine protein-to-creatinine ratio

Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis is the essential study for any patient with clinically apparent new-onset ascites.^1–3 It is the study that provides the most information on the cause of ascites.

In our patient, abdominal paracentesis yields 1,000 mL of straw-colored ascitic fluid, and analysis shows 86 nucleated cells, 28 of which are polymorphonuclear cells, and 0 red blood cells, with negative Gram stain and culture. The ascitic albumin level is 0.85 g/dL, with an ascitic protein of 1.1 g/dL.

Abdominal ultrasonography shows a diffusely echogenic liver, no focal lesions, moderate ascites, normal portal vein flow, no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary duct dilation, normal kidney sizes, no hydronephrosis, and no intra-abdominal mass. Chest radiography is clear with no sign of consolidation, edema, or effusion. Echocardiography shows a normal left ventricular ejection fraction with no valvular disease or pericardial effusion. A random urine protein-creatinine ratio is normal at 0.1 (reference range < 0.2).

2. What is the most likely cause of her ascites based on the workup to this point?

• Cirrhosis
• Heart failure
• Nephrotic syndrome
• Portal vein thrombus
• Abdominal malignancy
• Malaria

An initial approach to ascitic fluid analysis is to calculate the serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG). The SAAG is calculated as the serum albumin level minus the ascitic fluid albumin level.^4,5 This is useful in determining the cause of the ascites (Figure 1).^4,5 A gradient of 1.1 g/dL or higher indicates portal hypertension.^4,5

Common causes of portal hypertension include cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, heart failure, vascular occlusion syndromes (eg, Budd-Chiari syndrome, portal vein thrombosis), idiopathic portal fibrosis, and metastatic liver disease.^5,6

If portal hypertension is present based on the SAAG, the next step is to review the ascitic protein level to help distinguish between a hepatic and a cardiac etiology of the ascites. An ascitic protein level less than 2.5 g/dL indicates a primary liver pathology (eg, cirrhosis). An ascitic protein level of 2.5 g/dL or greater typically indicates a cardiac condition (eg, heart failure, pericardial disease) with secondary congestive hepatopathy.^5,6

If the SAAG is less than 1.1 g/dL, the ascites is likely not from portal hypertension. Typical causes of a low SAAG include infection, malignancy, pancreatic ascites, and nephrotic syndrome.^5,6

In our patient, the SAAG is 1.35 g/dL (2.2 g/dL minus 0.85 g/dL), ie, elevated and due to portal hypertension. With an SAAG of 1.1 g/dL or greater and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 2.5 g/dL, as in our patient, the most likely cause is cirrhosis.

Heart failure is unlikely based on her normal brain natriuretic peptide level, an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.5 g/dL, and normal results on echocardiography. Nephrotic syndrome is also very unlikely based on the patient’s normal random urine protein-creatinine ratio. Portal vein thrombus and abdominal malignancy are essentially ruled out by the negative results of Doppler abdominal ultrasonography, with normal venous flow and no intra-abdominal mass and coupled with an elevated SAAG.

Although the patient has a history of travel, the incubation period for malaria would not fit the time frame of presentation. Also, she did not have typical malarial symptoms, her rapid malaria test was negative, and a peripheral blood smear for blood parasites was negative. It should be noted, however, that Plasmodium malariae infection classically presents with flulike symptoms and can resemble nephrotic syndrome, including peripheral edema, ascites, heavy proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and hyperlipidemia.⁷

3. In which patients is antibiotic prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) appropriate?

• Any patient with cirrhosis
• Any patient with cirrhosis who is hospitalized
• Any patient with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.0 g/dL
• Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP

Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP should receive prophylactic antibiotics,⁸ as should any patient deemed at high risk of SBP. It is indicated in the following patients:

• Patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding^9,10
• Patients with cirrhosis and a previous episode of SBP⁸
• Patients with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 1.5 g/dL with either impaired renal function (creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dL, blood urea nitrogen level ≥ 25 mg/dL, or serum sodium ≤ 130 mmol/L) or liver failure (Child-Pugh score ≥ 9 and a bilirubin ≥ 3 mg/dL)⁹
• Patients with cirrhosis who are hospitalized for other reasons and have an ascitic protein level < 1.0 g/dL.⁹

Our patient has no signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of SBP. Her ascitic fluid protein level is 1.1 g/dL, and she has normal renal function. However, her Child-Pugh score is 12 (3 points for total bilirubin > 3 mg/dL, 3 points for serum albumin < 2.8 g/dL, 2 points for an INR 1.7 to 2.2, 3 points for moderate ascites, and 1 point for no encephalopathy), with a bilirubin of 17.0 mg/dL. Based on this, she is placed on antibiotic prophylaxis for SBP.

Our patient then undergoes an extensive workup for liver disease. Results of tests for toxins, autoimmune diseases, and inheritable diseases are all within normal limits. At this point, despite the patient’s reported negative alcohol history, our leading diagnosis is alcoholic hepatitis.

To confirm this diagnosis, she subsequently undergoes transjugular liver biopsy, considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis. During the procedure, the hepatic venous pressure gradient is measured at 18 mm Hg (reference range 1–5 mm Hg), suggestive of portal hypertension. The pathology study shows severe fatty change, active steatohepatitis with ballooning degeneration, easily identifiable Mallory-Denk bodies, and prominent neutrophilic infiltration, as well as extensive bridging fibrosis (Figure 2). These findings point to alcoholic hepatitis.

After the biopsy results, we speak with the patient further about her alcohol habits. At this point, she informs us that she has consumed significant amounts of alcohol since the age of 18 (6 to 12 alcoholic beverages per day, including beer and hard liquor). Therefore, based on this new information, on her jaundice and ascites, and on results of laboratory testing and biopsy, we confirmed our diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis.

4. When is drug treatment appropriate for alcoholic hepatitis?

• Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score greater than 12
• MELD score greater than 15
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 25
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32
• Glasgow score greater than 5
• Glasgow score greater than 7

The best answer is a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32. A variety of scoring systems have been used to assess the severity of alcoholic hepatitis and to guide treatment, including the Maddrey Discriminant Function score, the MELD score, and the Glasgow score.^11–16 They share similar laboratory values in their calculations, including prothrombin time (or INR) and total bilirubin.^11–16 Typically, a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32, a Glasgow score of greater than 9, or a MELD score greater than 21 is used to determine whether pharmacologic treatment is indicated.^11–16

The typical treatment is prednisolone or pentoxifylline.^11,17–21 The Lille score is designed to help decide whether to stop corticosteroids after 1 week of administration due to lack of treatment response.²² It predicts mortality rates within 6 months; a score of 0.45 or less indicates a good prognosis, and corticosteroid therapy should continue for 28 days (Figure 3).²²

Our patient’s discriminant function score is 50, her Glasgow score is 10, and her MELD score is 28; thus, she begins treatment with oral prednisolone. Her Lille score at 1 week is 0.119, indicating a good prognosis, and her corticosteroids are continued for a total of 28 days.

It should be highlighted that the most important treatment is abstinence from alcohol.¹¹ Recent literature suggests that any benefit of prednisolone or pentoxifylline in terms of mortality rates is questionable,^19–20 and there is evidence that giving both drugs simultaneously may improve mortality rates,^11,21 but the evidence remains conflicting at this time.

ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS

Alcoholic hepatitis is a clinical syndrome of jaundice and liver failure, often in the setting of heavy alcohol use for decades.^11,12 The incidence is unknown, but the typical age of presentation is between 40 and 50.^11,12 The chief sign is a rapid onset of jaundice (< 3 months); common signs and symptoms include fever, ascites, proximal muscle loss, and an enlarged, tender liver.¹² Encephalopathy may be seen in severe alcoholic hepatitis.¹²

Our patient is 35 years old. She has jaundice with rapid onset, as well as ascites and a tender liver.

The diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis must take into account the patient’s history, physical examination, and laboratory findings. Until proven otherwise, the diagnosis should be presumed in the following scenario: ascites and jaundice on examination (usually with a duration < 3 months); a history of heavy alcohol use; neutrophilic leukocytosis; an AST level that is elevated but below 300 U/L; an ALT level above the normal range but below 300 U/L; an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2; a total serum bilirubin level above 5 mg/dL; and an elevated INR.^11,12 Liver biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis. Though not routinely done because of risks associated with the procedure, it may help confirm the diagnosis if it is in question.

CASE CONCLUDED

We start our patient on oral prednisolone 40 mg daily for alcoholic hepatitis. Her symptoms and laboratory testing results including bilirubin improve. Her Lille score at 7 days indicates a good prognosis, prompting continuation of corticosteroid treatment for the full 28 days.

She is referred to an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program and has remained sober as of the last outpatient note.

Alcoholic hepatitis is extremely difficult to diagnose, and no single blood test or imaging study confirms the diagnosis. The history, physical examination findings, and laboratory findings are crucial. If the diagnosis is still in doubt, liver biopsy may help confirm the diagnosis.

A 35-year-old woman is admitted to the hospital with a 5-day history of abdominal distention and jaundice. She reports no history of fever, chills, night sweats, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes in urine color, change in stool color, weight loss, weight gain, or loss of appetite.

She is petite, with a body mass index of 19.4 kg/m². She has no known history of medical conditions or surgery and is not taking any medications. Her family history is unremarkable, and she denies current or past tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use.

RECENT TRAVEL

She says that during a trip to Central America several months ago, she had suffered a seizure and was taken to a local hospital, where laboratory testing revealed elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. She says that the rest of the workup at that time was normal.

About 1 week after that incident, she returned home and saw her primary care physician, who ordered further testing, which showed mild hyperbilirubinemia and mild elevation of AST and ALT levels. Her physician attributed the elevations to atovaquone, which she had been taking for malaria prophylaxis, as repeat testing 2 weeks later showed improvement in AST and ALT levels.

The patient says she returned to her normal state of health until about 5 days ago, when she noticed jaundice and abdominal distention, but without abdominal pain, dark urine, or clay-colored stools. She became concerned and went to her local hospital. Testing there noted mild elevation of AST and ALT, as well as an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and hyperbilirubinemia. Computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis showed hepatomegaly with possible fatty liver. Because of these results, the patient was transferred to our institution for further evaluation.

EVALUATION AT OUR INSTITUTION

On examination at our institution, she is afebrile, and vital signs are within normal ranges. She has bilateral scleral icterus and diffuse jaundice, but no other skin finding such as rash or spider angioma. She has no lymphadenopathy. Her abdomen is distended, with tense ascites, and her liver is tender to palpation. The tip of the spleen is not palpable.

The cardiovascular examination reveals no murmurs, rubs, or gallops, but she has jugular venous distention and +2 pitting edema of both lower extremities.

On respiratory examination, there is dullness to percussion, with slight crackles on auscultation at the right lung base. The neurologic examination is normal.

Table 1 shows the results of initial laboratory testing.

1. Which study would provide the most information on the cause of ascites?

• Abdominal ultrasonography
• Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis
• Chest radiography
• Echocardiography
• Urine protein-to-creatinine ratio

Abdominal paracentesis with ascitic fluid analysis is the essential study for any patient with clinically apparent new-onset ascites.^1–3 It is the study that provides the most information on the cause of ascites.

In our patient, abdominal paracentesis yields 1,000 mL of straw-colored ascitic fluid, and analysis shows 86 nucleated cells, 28 of which are polymorphonuclear cells, and 0 red blood cells, with negative Gram stain and culture. The ascitic albumin level is 0.85 g/dL, with an ascitic protein of 1.1 g/dL.

Abdominal ultrasonography shows a diffusely echogenic liver, no focal lesions, moderate ascites, normal portal vein flow, no intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary duct dilation, normal kidney sizes, no hydronephrosis, and no intra-abdominal mass. Chest radiography is clear with no sign of consolidation, edema, or effusion. Echocardiography shows a normal left ventricular ejection fraction with no valvular disease or pericardial effusion. A random urine protein-creatinine ratio is normal at 0.1 (reference range < 0.2).

2. What is the most likely cause of her ascites based on the workup to this point?

• Cirrhosis
• Heart failure
• Nephrotic syndrome
• Portal vein thrombus
• Abdominal malignancy
• Malaria

An initial approach to ascitic fluid analysis is to calculate the serum-ascites albumin gradient (SAAG). The SAAG is calculated as the serum albumin level minus the ascitic fluid albumin level.^4,5 This is useful in determining the cause of the ascites (Figure 1).^4,5 A gradient of 1.1 g/dL or higher indicates portal hypertension.^4,5

Common causes of portal hypertension include cirrhosis, alcoholic hepatitis, heart failure, vascular occlusion syndromes (eg, Budd-Chiari syndrome, portal vein thrombosis), idiopathic portal fibrosis, and metastatic liver disease.^5,6

If portal hypertension is present based on the SAAG, the next step is to review the ascitic protein level to help distinguish between a hepatic and a cardiac etiology of the ascites. An ascitic protein level less than 2.5 g/dL indicates a primary liver pathology (eg, cirrhosis). An ascitic protein level of 2.5 g/dL or greater typically indicates a cardiac condition (eg, heart failure, pericardial disease) with secondary congestive hepatopathy.^5,6

If the SAAG is less than 1.1 g/dL, the ascites is likely not from portal hypertension. Typical causes of a low SAAG include infection, malignancy, pancreatic ascites, and nephrotic syndrome.^5,6

In our patient, the SAAG is 1.35 g/dL (2.2 g/dL minus 0.85 g/dL), ie, elevated and due to portal hypertension. With an SAAG of 1.1 g/dL or greater and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 2.5 g/dL, as in our patient, the most likely cause is cirrhosis.

Heart failure is unlikely based on her normal brain natriuretic peptide level, an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.5 g/dL, and normal results on echocardiography. Nephrotic syndrome is also very unlikely based on the patient’s normal random urine protein-creatinine ratio. Portal vein thrombus and abdominal malignancy are essentially ruled out by the negative results of Doppler abdominal ultrasonography, with normal venous flow and no intra-abdominal mass and coupled with an elevated SAAG.

Although the patient has a history of travel, the incubation period for malaria would not fit the time frame of presentation. Also, she did not have typical malarial symptoms, her rapid malaria test was negative, and a peripheral blood smear for blood parasites was negative. It should be noted, however, that Plasmodium malariae infection classically presents with flulike symptoms and can resemble nephrotic syndrome, including peripheral edema, ascites, heavy proteinuria, hypoalbuminemia, and hyperlipidemia.⁷

3. In which patients is antibiotic prophylaxis against spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) appropriate?

• Any patient with cirrhosis
• Any patient with cirrhosis who is hospitalized
• Any patient with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level below 2.0 g/dL
• Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP

Any patient with cirrhosis and a history of SBP should receive prophylactic antibiotics,⁸ as should any patient deemed at high risk of SBP. It is indicated in the following patients:

• Patients with cirrhosis and gastrointestinal bleeding^9,10
• Patients with cirrhosis and a previous episode of SBP⁸
• Patients with cirrhosis and an ascitic fluid protein level less than 1.5 g/dL with either impaired renal function (creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dL, blood urea nitrogen level ≥ 25 mg/dL, or serum sodium ≤ 130 mmol/L) or liver failure (Child-Pugh score ≥ 9 and a bilirubin ≥ 3 mg/dL)⁹
• Patients with cirrhosis who are hospitalized for other reasons and have an ascitic protein level < 1.0 g/dL.⁹

Our patient has no signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of SBP. Her ascitic fluid protein level is 1.1 g/dL, and she has normal renal function. However, her Child-Pugh score is 12 (3 points for total bilirubin > 3 mg/dL, 3 points for serum albumin < 2.8 g/dL, 2 points for an INR 1.7 to 2.2, 3 points for moderate ascites, and 1 point for no encephalopathy), with a bilirubin of 17.0 mg/dL. Based on this, she is placed on antibiotic prophylaxis for SBP.

Our patient then undergoes an extensive workup for liver disease. Results of tests for toxins, autoimmune diseases, and inheritable diseases are all within normal limits. At this point, despite the patient’s reported negative alcohol history, our leading diagnosis is alcoholic hepatitis.

To confirm this diagnosis, she subsequently undergoes transjugular liver biopsy, considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis. During the procedure, the hepatic venous pressure gradient is measured at 18 mm Hg (reference range 1–5 mm Hg), suggestive of portal hypertension. The pathology study shows severe fatty change, active steatohepatitis with ballooning degeneration, easily identifiable Mallory-Denk bodies, and prominent neutrophilic infiltration, as well as extensive bridging fibrosis (Figure 2). These findings point to alcoholic hepatitis.

After the biopsy results, we speak with the patient further about her alcohol habits. At this point, she informs us that she has consumed significant amounts of alcohol since the age of 18 (6 to 12 alcoholic beverages per day, including beer and hard liquor). Therefore, based on this new information, on her jaundice and ascites, and on results of laboratory testing and biopsy, we confirmed our diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis.

4. When is drug treatment appropriate for alcoholic hepatitis?

• Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score greater than 12
• MELD score greater than 15
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 25
• Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32
• Glasgow score greater than 5
• Glasgow score greater than 7

The best answer is a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32. A variety of scoring systems have been used to assess the severity of alcoholic hepatitis and to guide treatment, including the Maddrey Discriminant Function score, the MELD score, and the Glasgow score.^11–16 They share similar laboratory values in their calculations, including prothrombin time (or INR) and total bilirubin.^11–16 Typically, a Maddrey Discriminant Function score greater than 32, a Glasgow score of greater than 9, or a MELD score greater than 21 is used to determine whether pharmacologic treatment is indicated.^11–16

The typical treatment is prednisolone or pentoxifylline.^11,17–21 The Lille score is designed to help decide whether to stop corticosteroids after 1 week of administration due to lack of treatment response.²² It predicts mortality rates within 6 months; a score of 0.45 or less indicates a good prognosis, and corticosteroid therapy should continue for 28 days (Figure 3).²²

Our patient’s discriminant function score is 50, her Glasgow score is 10, and her MELD score is 28; thus, she begins treatment with oral prednisolone. Her Lille score at 1 week is 0.119, indicating a good prognosis, and her corticosteroids are continued for a total of 28 days.

It should be highlighted that the most important treatment is abstinence from alcohol.¹¹ Recent literature suggests that any benefit of prednisolone or pentoxifylline in terms of mortality rates is questionable,^19–20 and there is evidence that giving both drugs simultaneously may improve mortality rates,^11,21 but the evidence remains conflicting at this time.

ALCOHOLIC HEPATITIS

Alcoholic hepatitis is a clinical syndrome of jaundice and liver failure, often in the setting of heavy alcohol use for decades.^11,12 The incidence is unknown, but the typical age of presentation is between 40 and 50.^11,12 The chief sign is a rapid onset of jaundice (< 3 months); common signs and symptoms include fever, ascites, proximal muscle loss, and an enlarged, tender liver.¹² Encephalopathy may be seen in severe alcoholic hepatitis.¹²

Our patient is 35 years old. She has jaundice with rapid onset, as well as ascites and a tender liver.

The diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis must take into account the patient’s history, physical examination, and laboratory findings. Until proven otherwise, the diagnosis should be presumed in the following scenario: ascites and jaundice on examination (usually with a duration < 3 months); a history of heavy alcohol use; neutrophilic leukocytosis; an AST level that is elevated but below 300 U/L; an ALT level above the normal range but below 300 U/L; an AST-ALT ratio greater than 2; a total serum bilirubin level above 5 mg/dL; and an elevated INR.^11,12 Liver biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis. Though not routinely done because of risks associated with the procedure, it may help confirm the diagnosis if it is in question.

CASE CONCLUDED

We start our patient on oral prednisolone 40 mg daily for alcoholic hepatitis. Her symptoms and laboratory testing results including bilirubin improve. Her Lille score at 7 days indicates a good prognosis, prompting continuation of corticosteroid treatment for the full 28 days.

She is referred to an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program and has remained sober as of the last outpatient note.

Alcoholic hepatitis is extremely difficult to diagnose, and no single blood test or imaging study confirms the diagnosis. The history, physical examination findings, and laboratory findings are crucial. If the diagnosis is still in doubt, liver biopsy may help confirm the diagnosis.

Reports of cancer date back thousands of years to Egyptian texts. Its existence baffled scientists until the 1950s, when Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, laying the groundwork for identifying the genetic pathways leading to cancer. Currently, cancer is a leading global cause of death and the second leading cause of death in the United States.^1,2

In an effort to curtail cancer and its related morbidity and mortality, population-based screening programs have been implemented with tests that identify precancerous lesions and, preferably, early-stage rather than late-stage cancer.

Screening for cancer can lead to early diagnosis and prevent death from cancer, but the topic continues to provoke controversy.

VALUE OF SCREENING QUESTIONED

In a commentary in the March 2019 Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Kim et al³ argued that cancer screening is not very effective and that we need to find the balance between the potential benefit and harm.

Using data from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and various studies, the authors showed that although screening can prevent some deaths from breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer, at least 3 times as many people who are screened still die of those diseases. Given that screening does not eliminate all cancer deaths, has not been definitely shown to decrease the all-cause mortality rate, and has the potential to harm through false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment, the authors questioned the utility of screening and encouraged us to discuss the benefits and harms with our patients.

In view of the apparently meager benefit, the USPSTF has relaxed its recommendations for screening for breast and prostate cancer in average-risk populations in recent years, a move that has evoked strong reactions from some clinicians. Proponents of screening argue that preventing late-stage cancers can save money, as the direct and indirect costs of morbidity associated with late-stage cancers are substantial, and that patients prefer screening when a test is available. Current models of screening efficacy do not take these factors into account.⁴

Kim et al, in defending the USPSTF’s position, suggested that the motivation for aggressive testing may be a belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life. They illustrated this through a Swiftian “modest proposal,” ie, universal prophylactic organectomy to prevent cancer. This hypothetical extreme measure would nearly eliminate the risk of cancer in the removed organs and prevent overdiagnosis and overtreatment of malignancies, but at substantial harm and cost.

In response to this proposal, we would like to point out the alternative extreme: stop all cancer screening programs. The pendulum would swing from what was previously considered a benefit—cancer prevention—to a harm, ie, cancer.

Observational studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and modeling studies show that screening for cervical, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer decreases disease-specific mortality.^5–11

For example, in lung cancer, the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated reductions in disease-specific and overall mortality in patients at high risk who underwent low-dose screening computed tomography.¹²

In breast cancer, a systematic review demonstrated decreased disease-specific mortality for women ages 50 through 79 who underwent screening mammography.¹³

In cervical cancer, lower rates of cancer-related death and invasive cancer have also been shown with screening.¹⁴

In colorectal cancer, great strides have been made in reducing both the incidence of and mortality from this disease over the past 30 years through fecal occult blood testing. Early detection shifts the 5-year survival rate—14% for late-stage cancer—to over 90%.¹⁵ Colorectal cancer screening has also been shown to be cost-effective, with savings in excess of $30,000 per life-year gained from screening.¹⁶

Moreover, recent data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial¹⁷ demonstrated a 2-fold higher overall non-cancer-related mortality rate in participants who did not adhere to screening compared with those who were fully adherent to all sex-specific PLCO screening tests when adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity. Although a possible explanation is that people who adhere to screening recommendations are also likely to have a healthier lifestyle overall, the association persisted (although it was slightly attenuated) even after adjusting for medical risk and behavioral factors.

ON THIS WE CAN AGREE

Like Kim et al, we also believe an informed discussion of screening should occur with each patient—and challenge Kim et al to design an efficient and practical approach to allow providers to do so in a busy office visit aimed to address and manage other competing diseases.

In addition, medical science needs to improve. Methods to increase the efficacy of screening and decrease risks should be explored; these include improving test and operator performance, reducing nonadherence to screening, investigating novel biomarkers or precursors of cancer and pathways that escape current detection, and devising better risk-stratification tools.

Bodies such as the USPSTF should use models that account for factors not considered previously but important when informing patients of potential benefits and harm. Examples include varying sensitivities and specificities at different rounds of testing and accounting for the variability in risk or efficacy affected by race, ethnicity, sex, and patient preferences.

We practice in the era of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines and recommendations are based on the available evidence. As more studies are published, disease mechanisms are better understood, and the effects of previous recommendations are evaluated, cancer screening programs will be further refined or replaced. The balance between benefit and harm will be further delineated.

Kim et al knocked on the door of personalized medicine, where individual screening will be based on individual risk. Until that door is opened, screening should be personalized through the risk-benefit discussions we have with our patients. Ultimately, the choice to undergo screening is the patient’s.

Reports of cancer date back thousands of years to Egyptian texts. Its existence baffled scientists until the 1950s, when Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, laying the groundwork for identifying the genetic pathways leading to cancer. Currently, cancer is a leading global cause of death and the second leading cause of death in the United States.^1,2

In an effort to curtail cancer and its related morbidity and mortality, population-based screening programs have been implemented with tests that identify precancerous lesions and, preferably, early-stage rather than late-stage cancer.

Screening for cancer can lead to early diagnosis and prevent death from cancer, but the topic continues to provoke controversy.

VALUE OF SCREENING QUESTIONED

In a commentary in the March 2019 Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Kim et al³ argued that cancer screening is not very effective and that we need to find the balance between the potential benefit and harm.

Using data from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and various studies, the authors showed that although screening can prevent some deaths from breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer, at least 3 times as many people who are screened still die of those diseases. Given that screening does not eliminate all cancer deaths, has not been definitely shown to decrease the all-cause mortality rate, and has the potential to harm through false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment, the authors questioned the utility of screening and encouraged us to discuss the benefits and harms with our patients.

In view of the apparently meager benefit, the USPSTF has relaxed its recommendations for screening for breast and prostate cancer in average-risk populations in recent years, a move that has evoked strong reactions from some clinicians. Proponents of screening argue that preventing late-stage cancers can save money, as the direct and indirect costs of morbidity associated with late-stage cancers are substantial, and that patients prefer screening when a test is available. Current models of screening efficacy do not take these factors into account.⁴

Kim et al, in defending the USPSTF’s position, suggested that the motivation for aggressive testing may be a belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life. They illustrated this through a Swiftian “modest proposal,” ie, universal prophylactic organectomy to prevent cancer. This hypothetical extreme measure would nearly eliminate the risk of cancer in the removed organs and prevent overdiagnosis and overtreatment of malignancies, but at substantial harm and cost.

In response to this proposal, we would like to point out the alternative extreme: stop all cancer screening programs. The pendulum would swing from what was previously considered a benefit—cancer prevention—to a harm, ie, cancer.

Observational studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and modeling studies show that screening for cervical, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer decreases disease-specific mortality.^5–11

For example, in lung cancer, the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated reductions in disease-specific and overall mortality in patients at high risk who underwent low-dose screening computed tomography.¹²

In breast cancer, a systematic review demonstrated decreased disease-specific mortality for women ages 50 through 79 who underwent screening mammography.¹³

In cervical cancer, lower rates of cancer-related death and invasive cancer have also been shown with screening.¹⁴

In colorectal cancer, great strides have been made in reducing both the incidence of and mortality from this disease over the past 30 years through fecal occult blood testing. Early detection shifts the 5-year survival rate—14% for late-stage cancer—to over 90%.¹⁵ Colorectal cancer screening has also been shown to be cost-effective, with savings in excess of $30,000 per life-year gained from screening.¹⁶

Moreover, recent data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial¹⁷ demonstrated a 2-fold higher overall non-cancer-related mortality rate in participants who did not adhere to screening compared with those who were fully adherent to all sex-specific PLCO screening tests when adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity. Although a possible explanation is that people who adhere to screening recommendations are also likely to have a healthier lifestyle overall, the association persisted (although it was slightly attenuated) even after adjusting for medical risk and behavioral factors.

ON THIS WE CAN AGREE

Like Kim et al, we also believe an informed discussion of screening should occur with each patient—and challenge Kim et al to design an efficient and practical approach to allow providers to do so in a busy office visit aimed to address and manage other competing diseases.

In addition, medical science needs to improve. Methods to increase the efficacy of screening and decrease risks should be explored; these include improving test and operator performance, reducing nonadherence to screening, investigating novel biomarkers or precursors of cancer and pathways that escape current detection, and devising better risk-stratification tools.

Bodies such as the USPSTF should use models that account for factors not considered previously but important when informing patients of potential benefits and harm. Examples include varying sensitivities and specificities at different rounds of testing and accounting for the variability in risk or efficacy affected by race, ethnicity, sex, and patient preferences.

We practice in the era of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines and recommendations are based on the available evidence. As more studies are published, disease mechanisms are better understood, and the effects of previous recommendations are evaluated, cancer screening programs will be further refined or replaced. The balance between benefit and harm will be further delineated.

Kim et al knocked on the door of personalized medicine, where individual screening will be based on individual risk. Until that door is opened, screening should be personalized through the risk-benefit discussions we have with our patients. Ultimately, the choice to undergo screening is the patient’s.

Reports of cancer date back thousands of years to Egyptian texts. Its existence baffled scientists until the 1950s, when Watson, Crick, and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, laying the groundwork for identifying the genetic pathways leading to cancer. Currently, cancer is a leading global cause of death and the second leading cause of death in the United States.^1,2

In an effort to curtail cancer and its related morbidity and mortality, population-based screening programs have been implemented with tests that identify precancerous lesions and, preferably, early-stage rather than late-stage cancer.

Screening for cancer can lead to early diagnosis and prevent death from cancer, but the topic continues to provoke controversy.

VALUE OF SCREENING QUESTIONED

In a commentary in the March 2019 Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, Kim et al³ argued that cancer screening is not very effective and that we need to find the balance between the potential benefit and harm.

Using data from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and various studies, the authors showed that although screening can prevent some deaths from breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer, at least 3 times as many people who are screened still die of those diseases. Given that screening does not eliminate all cancer deaths, has not been definitely shown to decrease the all-cause mortality rate, and has the potential to harm through false-positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment, the authors questioned the utility of screening and encouraged us to discuss the benefits and harms with our patients.

In view of the apparently meager benefit, the USPSTF has relaxed its recommendations for screening for breast and prostate cancer in average-risk populations in recent years, a move that has evoked strong reactions from some clinicians. Proponents of screening argue that preventing late-stage cancers can save money, as the direct and indirect costs of morbidity associated with late-stage cancers are substantial, and that patients prefer screening when a test is available. Current models of screening efficacy do not take these factors into account.⁴

Kim et al, in defending the USPSTF’s position, suggested that the motivation for aggressive testing may be a belief that no harm is greater than the benefit of saving a life. They illustrated this through a Swiftian “modest proposal,” ie, universal prophylactic organectomy to prevent cancer. This hypothetical extreme measure would nearly eliminate the risk of cancer in the removed organs and prevent overdiagnosis and overtreatment of malignancies, but at substantial harm and cost.

In response to this proposal, we would like to point out the alternative extreme: stop all cancer screening programs. The pendulum would swing from what was previously considered a benefit—cancer prevention—to a harm, ie, cancer.

Observational studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and modeling studies show that screening for cervical, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer decreases disease-specific mortality.^5–11

For example, in lung cancer, the National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated reductions in disease-specific and overall mortality in patients at high risk who underwent low-dose screening computed tomography.¹²

In breast cancer, a systematic review demonstrated decreased disease-specific mortality for women ages 50 through 79 who underwent screening mammography.¹³

In cervical cancer, lower rates of cancer-related death and invasive cancer have also been shown with screening.¹⁴

In colorectal cancer, great strides have been made in reducing both the incidence of and mortality from this disease over the past 30 years through fecal occult blood testing. Early detection shifts the 5-year survival rate—14% for late-stage cancer—to over 90%.¹⁵ Colorectal cancer screening has also been shown to be cost-effective, with savings in excess of $30,000 per life-year gained from screening.¹⁶

Moreover, recent data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) screening trial¹⁷ demonstrated a 2-fold higher overall non-cancer-related mortality rate in participants who did not adhere to screening compared with those who were fully adherent to all sex-specific PLCO screening tests when adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity. Although a possible explanation is that people who adhere to screening recommendations are also likely to have a healthier lifestyle overall, the association persisted (although it was slightly attenuated) even after adjusting for medical risk and behavioral factors.

ON THIS WE CAN AGREE

Like Kim et al, we also believe an informed discussion of screening should occur with each patient—and challenge Kim et al to design an efficient and practical approach to allow providers to do so in a busy office visit aimed to address and manage other competing diseases.

In addition, medical science needs to improve. Methods to increase the efficacy of screening and decrease risks should be explored; these include improving test and operator performance, reducing nonadherence to screening, investigating novel biomarkers or precursors of cancer and pathways that escape current detection, and devising better risk-stratification tools.

Bodies such as the USPSTF should use models that account for factors not considered previously but important when informing patients of potential benefits and harm. Examples include varying sensitivities and specificities at different rounds of testing and accounting for the variability in risk or efficacy affected by race, ethnicity, sex, and patient preferences.

We practice in the era of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines and recommendations are based on the available evidence. As more studies are published, disease mechanisms are better understood, and the effects of previous recommendations are evaluated, cancer screening programs will be further refined or replaced. The balance between benefit and harm will be further delineated.

Kim et al knocked on the door of personalized medicine, where individual screening will be based on individual risk. Until that door is opened, screening should be personalized through the risk-benefit discussions we have with our patients. Ultimately, the choice to undergo screening is the patient’s.

Ideally, pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should receive coordinated care from gastroenterologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists, plus additional input from nutritionists, lactation counselors, and colorectal surgeons as needed, states a new report from the American Gastroenterological Association.

But in reality, these women often receive scant and conflicting advice from health care providers, writes Uma Mahadevan, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, with her associates in Gastroenterology.

An “explosion” of new treatments in the past 15 years has given hope to many women with IBD who wish to be healthy enough to conceive, the experts noted. But in a recent AGA survey, more than 40% of obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) providers felt that women with IBD received inadequate information about pregnancy, compared with patients with other immune-mediated diseases. Strikingly, 94% of surveyed clinicians said they had patients stop taking their IBD medications during pregnancy because they feared harm to the fetus. In doing so, these patients actually risked greater disease activity, perinatal flares, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Therefore, the AGA, in partnership with the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Girls With Guts, crafted a standardized, evidence-based care pathway for health care providers from diverse disciplines who treat women with IBD in all stages of family planning. Its authors recommended that a maternal-fetal medicine specialist oversee obstetric care whenever possible. A gastroenterologist should continue IBD care by seeing the patient once during the first or second trimester and thereafter depending on IBD severity. The patient should receive a “clear and easily understandable consensus plan” for managing complex care during and after pregnancy, according to the pathway.

Aminosalicylates, biologics, and immunomodulators can be continued during pregnancy and delivery. Biologics have not shown teratogenicity in large studies, but monotherapy is preferred to reduce infection risk in infants. Clinicians should calculate weight-based doses according to prepregnancy weight. Doses can be tweaked to achieve minimal trough levels near delivery.

During pregnancy, patients should stop antidiarrheal therapy with loperamide and diphenoxylate when possible. Proinflammatory mediators are known to damage hippocampal neurogenesis and neuronal cytoarchitecture during brain development, so patients should understand the need for good inflammatory control during pregnancy. However, biologic therapy is preferred, and patients should only use corticosteroids adjunctively if needed for flares.

The usual indications guide the choice between a vaginal or cesarean delivery, the pathway states. Vaginal delivery often is possible for patients without active perineal disease, while cesarean is recommended for women with prior perineal surgery or active perineal disease or rectovaginal fistulas. The perineal area can be examined for active disease during the routine visit for group B streptococcus screening culture at 35-37 weeks’ gestation. For women who have had ileal-pouch anal anastomosis surgery, mode of delivery does not seem to affect pouch function, but cesarean delivery is thought to prevent anal sphincter injury and the accompanying risk of incontinence.

For ostomy patients, stretching of the abdominal wall during pregnancy can lead to stomal problems, such as displacement, enlargement, retraction, stenosis, and prolapse. A nutritionist can help ostomy patients avoid excess weight gain, and a colorectal surgeon and ostomy/wound nurse can help coordinate postpartum care. If cesarean delivery is needed, simply covering the ostomy with gauze sufficiently protects the operative field.

Since IBD increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, clinicians should consider prophylactic anticoagulation after cesarean delivery and during a hospitalization for IBD flares, according to the care pathway. Breastfeeding women can receive unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or warfarin up to 3-6 weeks post partum, but they should not receive oral direct thrombin or factor Xa inhibitors.

In addition, most IBD medications are either undetectable in breast milk or are secreted at such low concentrations that they pose no known risk to infants. Therefore, patients can continue IBD medications after delivery – except methotrexate, which has not been sufficiently studied to assess its safety. Breastfeeding women with IBD should avoid using fenugreek to increase milk production, since it can cause diarrhea and bleeding.

Finally, infants should not receive live vaccines during the first 6 months after birth if their mothers received biologics besides certolizumab during the third trimester, the pathway notes. In the United States, this applies only to the oral rotavirus vaccine.

For more information about the care pathway and resources for your patients, visit IBDParenthoodProject.org.

SOURCE: Mahadevan U et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.022.

Ideally, pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should receive coordinated care from gastroenterologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists, plus additional input from nutritionists, lactation counselors, and colorectal surgeons as needed, states a new report from the American Gastroenterological Association.

But in reality, these women often receive scant and conflicting advice from health care providers, writes Uma Mahadevan, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, with her associates in Gastroenterology.

An “explosion” of new treatments in the past 15 years has given hope to many women with IBD who wish to be healthy enough to conceive, the experts noted. But in a recent AGA survey, more than 40% of obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) providers felt that women with IBD received inadequate information about pregnancy, compared with patients with other immune-mediated diseases. Strikingly, 94% of surveyed clinicians said they had patients stop taking their IBD medications during pregnancy because they feared harm to the fetus. In doing so, these patients actually risked greater disease activity, perinatal flares, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Therefore, the AGA, in partnership with the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Girls With Guts, crafted a standardized, evidence-based care pathway for health care providers from diverse disciplines who treat women with IBD in all stages of family planning. Its authors recommended that a maternal-fetal medicine specialist oversee obstetric care whenever possible. A gastroenterologist should continue IBD care by seeing the patient once during the first or second trimester and thereafter depending on IBD severity. The patient should receive a “clear and easily understandable consensus plan” for managing complex care during and after pregnancy, according to the pathway.

Aminosalicylates, biologics, and immunomodulators can be continued during pregnancy and delivery. Biologics have not shown teratogenicity in large studies, but monotherapy is preferred to reduce infection risk in infants. Clinicians should calculate weight-based doses according to prepregnancy weight. Doses can be tweaked to achieve minimal trough levels near delivery.

During pregnancy, patients should stop antidiarrheal therapy with loperamide and diphenoxylate when possible. Proinflammatory mediators are known to damage hippocampal neurogenesis and neuronal cytoarchitecture during brain development, so patients should understand the need for good inflammatory control during pregnancy. However, biologic therapy is preferred, and patients should only use corticosteroids adjunctively if needed for flares.

The usual indications guide the choice between a vaginal or cesarean delivery, the pathway states. Vaginal delivery often is possible for patients without active perineal disease, while cesarean is recommended for women with prior perineal surgery or active perineal disease or rectovaginal fistulas. The perineal area can be examined for active disease during the routine visit for group B streptococcus screening culture at 35-37 weeks’ gestation. For women who have had ileal-pouch anal anastomosis surgery, mode of delivery does not seem to affect pouch function, but cesarean delivery is thought to prevent anal sphincter injury and the accompanying risk of incontinence.

For ostomy patients, stretching of the abdominal wall during pregnancy can lead to stomal problems, such as displacement, enlargement, retraction, stenosis, and prolapse. A nutritionist can help ostomy patients avoid excess weight gain, and a colorectal surgeon and ostomy/wound nurse can help coordinate postpartum care. If cesarean delivery is needed, simply covering the ostomy with gauze sufficiently protects the operative field.

Since IBD increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, clinicians should consider prophylactic anticoagulation after cesarean delivery and during a hospitalization for IBD flares, according to the care pathway. Breastfeeding women can receive unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or warfarin up to 3-6 weeks post partum, but they should not receive oral direct thrombin or factor Xa inhibitors.

In addition, most IBD medications are either undetectable in breast milk or are secreted at such low concentrations that they pose no known risk to infants. Therefore, patients can continue IBD medications after delivery – except methotrexate, which has not been sufficiently studied to assess its safety. Breastfeeding women with IBD should avoid using fenugreek to increase milk production, since it can cause diarrhea and bleeding.

Finally, infants should not receive live vaccines during the first 6 months after birth if their mothers received biologics besides certolizumab during the third trimester, the pathway notes. In the United States, this applies only to the oral rotavirus vaccine.

For more information about the care pathway and resources for your patients, visit IBDParenthoodProject.org.

SOURCE: Mahadevan U et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.022.

Ideally, pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) should receive coordinated care from gastroenterologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists, plus additional input from nutritionists, lactation counselors, and colorectal surgeons as needed, states a new report from the American Gastroenterological Association.

But in reality, these women often receive scant and conflicting advice from health care providers, writes Uma Mahadevan, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, with her associates in Gastroenterology.

An “explosion” of new treatments in the past 15 years has given hope to many women with IBD who wish to be healthy enough to conceive, the experts noted. But in a recent AGA survey, more than 40% of obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) providers felt that women with IBD received inadequate information about pregnancy, compared with patients with other immune-mediated diseases. Strikingly, 94% of surveyed clinicians said they had patients stop taking their IBD medications during pregnancy because they feared harm to the fetus. In doing so, these patients actually risked greater disease activity, perinatal flares, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Therefore, the AGA, in partnership with the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Girls With Guts, crafted a standardized, evidence-based care pathway for health care providers from diverse disciplines who treat women with IBD in all stages of family planning. Its authors recommended that a maternal-fetal medicine specialist oversee obstetric care whenever possible. A gastroenterologist should continue IBD care by seeing the patient once during the first or second trimester and thereafter depending on IBD severity. The patient should receive a “clear and easily understandable consensus plan” for managing complex care during and after pregnancy, according to the pathway.

Aminosalicylates, biologics, and immunomodulators can be continued during pregnancy and delivery. Biologics have not shown teratogenicity in large studies, but monotherapy is preferred to reduce infection risk in infants. Clinicians should calculate weight-based doses according to prepregnancy weight. Doses can be tweaked to achieve minimal trough levels near delivery.

During pregnancy, patients should stop antidiarrheal therapy with loperamide and diphenoxylate when possible. Proinflammatory mediators are known to damage hippocampal neurogenesis and neuronal cytoarchitecture during brain development, so patients should understand the need for good inflammatory control during pregnancy. However, biologic therapy is preferred, and patients should only use corticosteroids adjunctively if needed for flares.

The usual indications guide the choice between a vaginal or cesarean delivery, the pathway states. Vaginal delivery often is possible for patients without active perineal disease, while cesarean is recommended for women with prior perineal surgery or active perineal disease or rectovaginal fistulas. The perineal area can be examined for active disease during the routine visit for group B streptococcus screening culture at 35-37 weeks’ gestation. For women who have had ileal-pouch anal anastomosis surgery, mode of delivery does not seem to affect pouch function, but cesarean delivery is thought to prevent anal sphincter injury and the accompanying risk of incontinence.

For ostomy patients, stretching of the abdominal wall during pregnancy can lead to stomal problems, such as displacement, enlargement, retraction, stenosis, and prolapse. A nutritionist can help ostomy patients avoid excess weight gain, and a colorectal surgeon and ostomy/wound nurse can help coordinate postpartum care. If cesarean delivery is needed, simply covering the ostomy with gauze sufficiently protects the operative field.

Since IBD increases the risk of venous thromboembolism, clinicians should consider prophylactic anticoagulation after cesarean delivery and during a hospitalization for IBD flares, according to the care pathway. Breastfeeding women can receive unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or warfarin up to 3-6 weeks post partum, but they should not receive oral direct thrombin or factor Xa inhibitors.

In addition, most IBD medications are either undetectable in breast milk or are secreted at such low concentrations that they pose no known risk to infants. Therefore, patients can continue IBD medications after delivery – except methotrexate, which has not been sufficiently studied to assess its safety. Breastfeeding women with IBD should avoid using fenugreek to increase milk production, since it can cause diarrhea and bleeding.

Finally, infants should not receive live vaccines during the first 6 months after birth if their mothers received biologics besides certolizumab during the third trimester, the pathway notes. In the United States, this applies only to the oral rotavirus vaccine.

For more information about the care pathway and resources for your patients, visit IBDParenthoodProject.org.

SOURCE: Mahadevan U et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.12.022.

A new mother drowned her 6-month-old daughter in the bathtub. The married woman, who had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had been high functioning and worked in a managerial role prior to giving birth. However, within a day of delivery, her mental state deteriorated. She quickly became convinced that her daughter had a genetic disorder such as achondroplasia. Physical examinations, genetic testing, and x-rays all failed to alleviate her concerns. Examination of her computer revealed thousands of searches for various medical conditions and surgical treatments. After the baby’s death, the mother was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She eventually pled guilty to manslaughter.¹

Mothers with postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically present fulminantly within days to weeks of giving birth. Symptoms of PPP may include not only psychosis, but also confusion and dysphoric mania. These symptoms often wax and wane, which can make it challenging to establish the diagnosis. In addition, many mothers hide their symptoms due to poor insight, delusions, or fear of loss of custody of their infant. In the vast majority of cases, psychiatric hospitalization is required to protect both mother and baby; untreated, there is an elevated risk of both maternal suicide and infanticide. This article discusses the presentation of PPP, its differential diagnosis, risk factors for developing PPP, suicide and infanticide risk assessment, treatment (including during breastfeeding), and prevention.

The bipolar connection

While multiple factors may increase the risk of PPP (Table 1²), women with bipolar disorder have a particularly elevated risk. After experiencing incipient postpartum affective psychosis, a woman has a 50% to 80% chance of having another psychiatric episode, usually within the bipolar spectrum.² Of all women with PPP, 70% to 90% have bipolar illness or schizoaffective disorder, while approximately 12% have schizophrenia.^3,4Women with bipolar disorder are more likely to experience a postpartum psychiatric admission than mothers with any other psychiatric diagnosis⁵ and have an increased risk of PPP by a factor of 100 over the general population.²

For women with bipolar disorder, PPP should be understood as a recurrence of the chronic disease. Recent evidence does suggest, however, that a significant minority of women progress to experience mood and psychotic symptoms only in the postpartum period.^6,7 It is hypothesized that this subgroup of women has a biologic vulnerability to affective psychosis that is limited to the postpartum period. Clinically, understanding a woman’s disease course is important because it may guide decision-making about prophylactic medications during or after pregnancy.

A rapid, delirium-like presentation

Postpartum psychosis is a rare disorder, with a prevalence of 1 to 2 cases per 1,000 childbirths.³ While symptoms may begin days to weeks postpartum, the typical time of onset is between 3 to 10 days after birth, occurring after a woman has been discharged from the hospital and during a time of change and uncertainty. This can make the presentation of PPP a confusing and distressing experience for both the new mother and the family, resulting in delays in seeking care.

Subtle prodromal symptoms may include insomnia, mood fluctuation, and irritability. As symptoms progress, PPP is notable for a rapid onset and a delirium-like appearance that may include waxing and waning cognitive symptoms such as disorientation and confusion.⁸ Grossly disorganized behaviors and rapid mood fluctuations are typical. Distinct from mood episodes outside the peripartum period, women with PPP often experience mood-incongruent delusions and obsessive thoughts, often focused on their child.⁹ Women with PPP appear less likely to experience thought insertion or withdrawal or auditory hallucinations that give a running commentary.²

Differential diagnosis includes depression, OCD

When evaluating a woman with possible postpartum psychotic symptoms or delirium, it is important to include a thorough history, physical examination, and relevant laboratory and/or imaging investigations to assess for organic causes or contributors (Table 2^2,6,10-12 and Table 3^2,6,10-12). A detailed psychiatric history should establish whether the patient is presenting with new-onset psychosis or has had previous mood or psychotic episodes that may have gone undetected. Important perinatal psychiatric differential diagnoses should include “baby blues,” postpartum depression (PPD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Continue to: PPP vs "baby blues."

PPP vs “baby blues.” “Baby blues” is not an official DSM-5 diagnosis but rather a normative postpartum experience that affects 50% to 80% of postpartum women. A woman with the “baby blues” may feel weepy or have mild mood lability, irritability, or anxiety; however, these symptoms do not significantly impair function. Peak symptoms typically occur between 2 to 5 days postpartum and generally resolve within 2 weeks. Women who have the “baby blues” are at an increased risk for PPD and should be monitored over time.^13,14

PPP vs PPD. Postpartum depression affects approximately 10% to 15% of new mothers.¹⁵ Women with PPD may experience feelings of persistent and severe sadness, feelings of detachment, insomnia, and fatigue. Symptoms of PPD can interfere with a mother’s interest in caring for her baby and present a barrier to maternal bonding.^16,17

As the awareness of PPD has increased in recent years, screening for depressive symptoms during and after pregnancy has increasingly become the standard of care.¹⁸ When evaluating a postpartum woman for PPD, it is important to consider PPP in the differential. Women with severe or persistent depressive symptoms may also develop psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming the infant may be present in either PPD or PPP. One study found that 41% of mothers with depression endorsed thoughts of harming their infants.¹⁹

PPP vs postpartum OCD. Postpartum obsessive-compulsive symptoms commonly occur comorbidly with PPD,⁹ and OCD often presents for the first time in the postpartum period.²⁰ Obsessive-compulsive disorder affects between 2% to 9% of new mothers.^21,22 It is critical to properly differentiate PPP from postpartum OCD. Clinical questions should be posed with a non-judgmental stance. Just as delusions in PPP are often focused on the infant, for women with OCD, obsessive thoughts may center on worries about the infant’s safety. Distressing obsessions about violence are common in OCD.²³ Mothers with OCD may experience intrusive thinking about accidentally or purposefully harming their infant. For example, they may intrusively worry that they will accidentally put the baby in the microwave or oven, leave the baby in a hot car, or throw the baby down the stairs. However, a postpartum woman with OCD may be reluctant to share her ego-dystonic thoughts of infant harm. Mothers with OCD are not out of touch with reality; instead, their intrusive thoughts are ego-dystonic and distressing. These are thoughts and fears that they focus on and try to avoid, rather than plan. The psychiatrist must carefully differentiate between ego-syntonic and ego-dystonic thoughts. These patients often avoid seeking treatment because of their shame and guilt.²³ Clinicians often under-recognize OCD and risk inappropriate hospitalization, treatment, and inappropriate referral to Child Protective Services (CPS).²³

Perinatal psychiatric risk assessment

When a mother develops PPP, consider the risks of suicide, child harm, and infanticide. Although suicide risk is generally lower in the postpartum period, suicide is the cause of 20% of postpartum deaths.^24,25 When PPP is untreated, suicide risk is elevated. A careful suicide risk assessment should be completed.

Continue to: Particularly in PPP...

Particularly in PPP, a mother may be at risk of child neglect or abuse due to her confused or delusional thinking and mood state.²⁶ For example, one mother heated empty bottles and gave them to her baby, and then became frustrated when the baby continued to cry.

The risk of infanticide is also elevated in untreated PPP, with approximately 4% of these women committing infanticide.⁹ There are 5 motives for infanticide (Table 4²⁷). Altruistic and acutely psychotic motives are more likely to be related to PPP, while fatal maltreatment, unwanted child, and partner revenge motives are less likely to be related to PPP. Among mothers who kill both their child and themselves (filicide-suicide), altruistic motives were the most common.²⁸ Mothers in psychiatric samples who kill their children have often experienced psychosis, suicidality, depression, and significant life stresses.²⁷ Both infanticidal ideas and behaviors have been associated with psychotic thinking about the infant,²⁹ so it is critical to ascertain whether the mother’s delusions or hallucinations involve the infant.³⁰ In contrast, neonaticide (murder in the first day of life) is rarely related to PPP because PPP typically has a later onset.³¹

Treating acute PPP

The fulminant nature of PPP can make its treatment difficult. Thinking through the case in an organized fashion is critical (Table 5).

Hospitalization. Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency with a rapid onset of symptoms. Hospitalization is required in almost all cases for diagnostic evaluation, assessment and management of safety, and initiation of treatment. While maternal-infant bonding in the perinatal period is important, infant safety is critical and usually requires maternal psychiatric hospitalization.

The specialized mother-baby psychiatric unit (MBU) is a model of care first developed in the United Kingdom and is now available in many European countries as well as in New Zealand and Australia. Mother-baby psychiatric units admit the mother and the baby together and provide dyadic treatment to allow for enhanced bonding and parenting support, and often to encourage breastfeeding.³⁰ In the United States, there has been growing interest in specialized inpatient settings that acknowledge the importance of maternal-infant attachment in the treatment of perinatal disorders and provide care with a dyadic focus; however, differences in the health care payer system have been a barrier to full-scale MBUs. The Perinatal Psychiatry Inpatient Unit at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is among the first of such a model in the United States.³²

Continue to: Although this specialized treatment setting...

Although this specialized treatment setting is unlikely to be available in most American cities, treatment should still consider the maternal role. When possible, the infant should stay with the father or family members during the mother’s hospitalization, and supervised visits should be arranged when appropriate. If the mother is breastfeeding, or plans to breastfeed after the hospitalization, the treatment team may consider providing supervised use of a breast pump and making arrangements for breast milk storage. During the mother’s hospitalization, staff should provide psychoeducation and convey hopefulness and support.

Medication management. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are often used for acute management of PPP. The choice of medication is determined by individual symptoms, severity of presentation, previous response to medication, and maternal adverse effects.³⁰ In a naturalistic study of 64 women admitted for new-onset PPP, sequential administration of benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and lithium was found to be effective in achieving remission for 99% of patients, with 80% sustaining remission at 9 months postpartum.⁶ Second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and quetiapine are especially helpful because they can manage multiple symptoms, including insomnia, mood-related symptoms, and anxiety, although the risk of maternal weight gain and sedation (which could impair a mother’s ability to respond to her infant) should be discussed with the patient and needs to be monitored.³³ Antidepressants should be avoided due to the risk of inducing rapid cycling or mixed mood states, although these medications may be considered for patients with PPD or postpartum OCD. Lactation inhibitors, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, also should be avoided because they are dopamine agonists and can exacerbate psychosis. Electroconvulsive therapy is a safe and effective treatment for PPP and can be considered first-line treatment for high-risk patients when rapid improvement is needed.³⁴ It has been proposed as a primary treatment for women with catatonia, agitation, compromised nutritional status due to refusal to eat or drink, high suicidality, or treatment resistance.³⁰

Breastfeeding. It is important to discuss breastfeeding with the mother and her partner or family. The patient’s preference, the maternal and infant benefits of breastfeeding, the potential for sleep disruption, and the safety profile of needed medications should all be considered. Because sleep loss is a modifiable risk factor in PPP, the benefits of breastfeeding may be outweighed by the risks for some patients.⁹ For others, breastfeeding during the day and bottle-feeding at night may be preferred. Including the partner in this discussion and planning is important because they can play a crucial role in taking over some of the nightly feedings to facilitate maternal sleep. Give the family information about options for support in the home, such as doulas and baby nannies. The Related Resources lists a recent review of risks and benefits of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics during breastfeeding.

What to consider during discharge planning

Discharge arrangements require careful consideration (Table 6). Meet with the family prior to discharge to provide psychoeducation and to underscore the importance of family involvement with both mother and infant. It is important to ensure adequate support at home, including at night, since sleep is critical to improved stability. Encourage the patient and her family to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, which might include refractory insomnia, mood instability, poor judgment, or hypomanic symptoms.³⁵ She should be followed closely as an outpatient. Having her partner (or another close family member) and infant present during appointments can help in obtaining collateral information and assessing mother-infant bonding. The clinician should also consider whether it is necessary to contact CPS. Many mothers with mental illness appropriately parent their child, but CPS should be alerted when there is a reasonable concern about safe parenting—abuse, neglect, or significant risk.³⁶

Take steps for prevention

An important part of managing PPP is prevention. This involves providing preconception counseling to the woman and her partner.³⁰ Preconception advice should be individualized and include discussion of:

• risks of relapse in pregnancy and the postpartum period
• optimal physical and mental health
• potential risks and benefits of medication options in pregnancy
• potential effects of untreated illness for the fetus, infant, and family
• a strategy outlining whether medication is continued in pregnancy or started in the postpartum period.

Continue to: For women at risk of PPP...

For women at risk of PPP, the risks of medications need to be balanced with the risks of untreated illness. To reduce the risk of PPP relapse, guidelines recommend a robust antenatal care plan that should include^37,38:

• close monitoring of a woman’s mental state for early warning signs of PPP, with active participation from the woman’s partner and family
• ongoing discussion of the risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy (and, for women who prefer to not take medication in the first trimester, a plan for when medications will be restarted)
• collaboration with other professionals involved in care during pregnancy and postpartum (eg, obstetricians, midwives, family practitioners, pediatricians)
• planning to minimize risk factors associated with relapse (eg, sleep deprivation, lack of social supports, domestic violence, and substance abuse).

Evidence clearly suggests that women with bipolar disorder are at increased risk for illness recurrence without continued maintenance medication.³⁹ A subgroup of women with PPP go on to have psychosis limited to the postpartum period, and reinstating prophylactic medication in late pregnancy (preferably) or immediately after birth should be discussed.² The choice of prophylactic medication should be determined by the woman’s previous response.

Regarding prophylaxis, the most evidence exists for lithium.⁶ Lithium use during the first trimester carries a risk of Ebstein’s anomaly. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis have concluded that the teratogenic risks of lithium have been overestimated.^40,41

Lamotrigine is an alternative mood stabilizer with a favorable safety profile in pregnancy. In a small naturalistic study in which lamotrigine was continued in pregnancy in women with bipolar disorder, the medication was effective in preventing relapse in pregnancy and postpartum.⁴² A small population-based cohort study found lamotrigine was as effective as lithium in preventing severe postpartum relapse in women with bipolar disorder,⁴³ although this study was limited by its observational design. Recently published studies have found no significant association between lamotrigine use in pregnancy and congenital malformations.^44,45 While recent evidence suggests that lamotrigine is a reasonable option for treating bipolar disorder during pregnancy, further research is warranted to determine the best clinical practice.⁴⁶ The Box^30,47,48 provides more information regarding prophylactic medications in pregnancy.

Box

Pharmacotherapy can reduce relapse risk

To prevent relapse in the postpartum period, consider initiating treatment with mood stabilizers and/or SGAs, particularly for women with bipolar disorder who do not take medication during pregnancy. A recent meta-analysis found a high postpartum relapse rate (66%) in women with bipolar disorder who did not take prophylactic medication, compared with a relapse rate of 23% for women who did take such medication. In women with psychosis limited to the postpartum period, prophylaxis with lithium or antipsychotics in the immediate postpartum can prevent relapse.³⁹ The SGAs olanzapine and quetiapine are often used to manage acute symptoms because they are considered acceptable during breastfeeding.³³ The use of lithium when breastfeeding is complex to manage⁴⁸ and may require advice to not breastfeed, which can be an important consideration for patients and their families.

Bottom Line

Postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically presents with a rapid onset of hallucinations, delusions, confusion, and mood swings within days to weeks of giving birth. Mothers with PPP almost always require hospitalization for the safety of their infants and themselves. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics are used for acute management.

Related Resources

• Clark CT, Wisner KL. Treatment of peripartum bipolar disorder. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2018;45:403-417.
• Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health. https://womensmentalhealth.org/. 2018.
• Postpartum Support International. Postpartum psychosis. http://www.postpartum.net/learn-more/postpartumpsychosis/. 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Cabergoline • Dostinex
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel

A new mother drowned her 6-month-old daughter in the bathtub. The married woman, who had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had been high functioning and worked in a managerial role prior to giving birth. However, within a day of delivery, her mental state deteriorated. She quickly became convinced that her daughter had a genetic disorder such as achondroplasia. Physical examinations, genetic testing, and x-rays all failed to alleviate her concerns. Examination of her computer revealed thousands of searches for various medical conditions and surgical treatments. After the baby’s death, the mother was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She eventually pled guilty to manslaughter.¹

Mothers with postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically present fulminantly within days to weeks of giving birth. Symptoms of PPP may include not only psychosis, but also confusion and dysphoric mania. These symptoms often wax and wane, which can make it challenging to establish the diagnosis. In addition, many mothers hide their symptoms due to poor insight, delusions, or fear of loss of custody of their infant. In the vast majority of cases, psychiatric hospitalization is required to protect both mother and baby; untreated, there is an elevated risk of both maternal suicide and infanticide. This article discusses the presentation of PPP, its differential diagnosis, risk factors for developing PPP, suicide and infanticide risk assessment, treatment (including during breastfeeding), and prevention.

The bipolar connection

While multiple factors may increase the risk of PPP (Table 1²), women with bipolar disorder have a particularly elevated risk. After experiencing incipient postpartum affective psychosis, a woman has a 50% to 80% chance of having another psychiatric episode, usually within the bipolar spectrum.² Of all women with PPP, 70% to 90% have bipolar illness or schizoaffective disorder, while approximately 12% have schizophrenia.^3,4Women with bipolar disorder are more likely to experience a postpartum psychiatric admission than mothers with any other psychiatric diagnosis⁵ and have an increased risk of PPP by a factor of 100 over the general population.²

For women with bipolar disorder, PPP should be understood as a recurrence of the chronic disease. Recent evidence does suggest, however, that a significant minority of women progress to experience mood and psychotic symptoms only in the postpartum period.^6,7 It is hypothesized that this subgroup of women has a biologic vulnerability to affective psychosis that is limited to the postpartum period. Clinically, understanding a woman’s disease course is important because it may guide decision-making about prophylactic medications during or after pregnancy.

A rapid, delirium-like presentation

Postpartum psychosis is a rare disorder, with a prevalence of 1 to 2 cases per 1,000 childbirths.³ While symptoms may begin days to weeks postpartum, the typical time of onset is between 3 to 10 days after birth, occurring after a woman has been discharged from the hospital and during a time of change and uncertainty. This can make the presentation of PPP a confusing and distressing experience for both the new mother and the family, resulting in delays in seeking care.

Subtle prodromal symptoms may include insomnia, mood fluctuation, and irritability. As symptoms progress, PPP is notable for a rapid onset and a delirium-like appearance that may include waxing and waning cognitive symptoms such as disorientation and confusion.⁸ Grossly disorganized behaviors and rapid mood fluctuations are typical. Distinct from mood episodes outside the peripartum period, women with PPP often experience mood-incongruent delusions and obsessive thoughts, often focused on their child.⁹ Women with PPP appear less likely to experience thought insertion or withdrawal or auditory hallucinations that give a running commentary.²

Differential diagnosis includes depression, OCD

When evaluating a woman with possible postpartum psychotic symptoms or delirium, it is important to include a thorough history, physical examination, and relevant laboratory and/or imaging investigations to assess for organic causes or contributors (Table 2^2,6,10-12 and Table 3^2,6,10-12). A detailed psychiatric history should establish whether the patient is presenting with new-onset psychosis or has had previous mood or psychotic episodes that may have gone undetected. Important perinatal psychiatric differential diagnoses should include “baby blues,” postpartum depression (PPD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Continue to: PPP vs "baby blues."

PPP vs “baby blues.” “Baby blues” is not an official DSM-5 diagnosis but rather a normative postpartum experience that affects 50% to 80% of postpartum women. A woman with the “baby blues” may feel weepy or have mild mood lability, irritability, or anxiety; however, these symptoms do not significantly impair function. Peak symptoms typically occur between 2 to 5 days postpartum and generally resolve within 2 weeks. Women who have the “baby blues” are at an increased risk for PPD and should be monitored over time.^13,14

PPP vs PPD. Postpartum depression affects approximately 10% to 15% of new mothers.¹⁵ Women with PPD may experience feelings of persistent and severe sadness, feelings of detachment, insomnia, and fatigue. Symptoms of PPD can interfere with a mother’s interest in caring for her baby and present a barrier to maternal bonding.^16,17

As the awareness of PPD has increased in recent years, screening for depressive symptoms during and after pregnancy has increasingly become the standard of care.¹⁸ When evaluating a postpartum woman for PPD, it is important to consider PPP in the differential. Women with severe or persistent depressive symptoms may also develop psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming the infant may be present in either PPD or PPP. One study found that 41% of mothers with depression endorsed thoughts of harming their infants.¹⁹

PPP vs postpartum OCD. Postpartum obsessive-compulsive symptoms commonly occur comorbidly with PPD,⁹ and OCD often presents for the first time in the postpartum period.²⁰ Obsessive-compulsive disorder affects between 2% to 9% of new mothers.^21,22 It is critical to properly differentiate PPP from postpartum OCD. Clinical questions should be posed with a non-judgmental stance. Just as delusions in PPP are often focused on the infant, for women with OCD, obsessive thoughts may center on worries about the infant’s safety. Distressing obsessions about violence are common in OCD.²³ Mothers with OCD may experience intrusive thinking about accidentally or purposefully harming their infant. For example, they may intrusively worry that they will accidentally put the baby in the microwave or oven, leave the baby in a hot car, or throw the baby down the stairs. However, a postpartum woman with OCD may be reluctant to share her ego-dystonic thoughts of infant harm. Mothers with OCD are not out of touch with reality; instead, their intrusive thoughts are ego-dystonic and distressing. These are thoughts and fears that they focus on and try to avoid, rather than plan. The psychiatrist must carefully differentiate between ego-syntonic and ego-dystonic thoughts. These patients often avoid seeking treatment because of their shame and guilt.²³ Clinicians often under-recognize OCD and risk inappropriate hospitalization, treatment, and inappropriate referral to Child Protective Services (CPS).²³

Perinatal psychiatric risk assessment

When a mother develops PPP, consider the risks of suicide, child harm, and infanticide. Although suicide risk is generally lower in the postpartum period, suicide is the cause of 20% of postpartum deaths.^24,25 When PPP is untreated, suicide risk is elevated. A careful suicide risk assessment should be completed.

Continue to: Particularly in PPP...

Particularly in PPP, a mother may be at risk of child neglect or abuse due to her confused or delusional thinking and mood state.²⁶ For example, one mother heated empty bottles and gave them to her baby, and then became frustrated when the baby continued to cry.

The risk of infanticide is also elevated in untreated PPP, with approximately 4% of these women committing infanticide.⁹ There are 5 motives for infanticide (Table 4²⁷). Altruistic and acutely psychotic motives are more likely to be related to PPP, while fatal maltreatment, unwanted child, and partner revenge motives are less likely to be related to PPP. Among mothers who kill both their child and themselves (filicide-suicide), altruistic motives were the most common.²⁸ Mothers in psychiatric samples who kill their children have often experienced psychosis, suicidality, depression, and significant life stresses.²⁷ Both infanticidal ideas and behaviors have been associated with psychotic thinking about the infant,²⁹ so it is critical to ascertain whether the mother’s delusions or hallucinations involve the infant.³⁰ In contrast, neonaticide (murder in the first day of life) is rarely related to PPP because PPP typically has a later onset.³¹

Treating acute PPP

The fulminant nature of PPP can make its treatment difficult. Thinking through the case in an organized fashion is critical (Table 5).

Hospitalization. Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency with a rapid onset of symptoms. Hospitalization is required in almost all cases for diagnostic evaluation, assessment and management of safety, and initiation of treatment. While maternal-infant bonding in the perinatal period is important, infant safety is critical and usually requires maternal psychiatric hospitalization.

The specialized mother-baby psychiatric unit (MBU) is a model of care first developed in the United Kingdom and is now available in many European countries as well as in New Zealand and Australia. Mother-baby psychiatric units admit the mother and the baby together and provide dyadic treatment to allow for enhanced bonding and parenting support, and often to encourage breastfeeding.³⁰ In the United States, there has been growing interest in specialized inpatient settings that acknowledge the importance of maternal-infant attachment in the treatment of perinatal disorders and provide care with a dyadic focus; however, differences in the health care payer system have been a barrier to full-scale MBUs. The Perinatal Psychiatry Inpatient Unit at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is among the first of such a model in the United States.³²

Continue to: Although this specialized treatment setting...

Although this specialized treatment setting is unlikely to be available in most American cities, treatment should still consider the maternal role. When possible, the infant should stay with the father or family members during the mother’s hospitalization, and supervised visits should be arranged when appropriate. If the mother is breastfeeding, or plans to breastfeed after the hospitalization, the treatment team may consider providing supervised use of a breast pump and making arrangements for breast milk storage. During the mother’s hospitalization, staff should provide psychoeducation and convey hopefulness and support.

Medication management. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are often used for acute management of PPP. The choice of medication is determined by individual symptoms, severity of presentation, previous response to medication, and maternal adverse effects.³⁰ In a naturalistic study of 64 women admitted for new-onset PPP, sequential administration of benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and lithium was found to be effective in achieving remission for 99% of patients, with 80% sustaining remission at 9 months postpartum.⁶ Second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and quetiapine are especially helpful because they can manage multiple symptoms, including insomnia, mood-related symptoms, and anxiety, although the risk of maternal weight gain and sedation (which could impair a mother’s ability to respond to her infant) should be discussed with the patient and needs to be monitored.³³ Antidepressants should be avoided due to the risk of inducing rapid cycling or mixed mood states, although these medications may be considered for patients with PPD or postpartum OCD. Lactation inhibitors, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, also should be avoided because they are dopamine agonists and can exacerbate psychosis. Electroconvulsive therapy is a safe and effective treatment for PPP and can be considered first-line treatment for high-risk patients when rapid improvement is needed.³⁴ It has been proposed as a primary treatment for women with catatonia, agitation, compromised nutritional status due to refusal to eat or drink, high suicidality, or treatment resistance.³⁰

Breastfeeding. It is important to discuss breastfeeding with the mother and her partner or family. The patient’s preference, the maternal and infant benefits of breastfeeding, the potential for sleep disruption, and the safety profile of needed medications should all be considered. Because sleep loss is a modifiable risk factor in PPP, the benefits of breastfeeding may be outweighed by the risks for some patients.⁹ For others, breastfeeding during the day and bottle-feeding at night may be preferred. Including the partner in this discussion and planning is important because they can play a crucial role in taking over some of the nightly feedings to facilitate maternal sleep. Give the family information about options for support in the home, such as doulas and baby nannies. The Related Resources lists a recent review of risks and benefits of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics during breastfeeding.

What to consider during discharge planning

Discharge arrangements require careful consideration (Table 6). Meet with the family prior to discharge to provide psychoeducation and to underscore the importance of family involvement with both mother and infant. It is important to ensure adequate support at home, including at night, since sleep is critical to improved stability. Encourage the patient and her family to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, which might include refractory insomnia, mood instability, poor judgment, or hypomanic symptoms.³⁵ She should be followed closely as an outpatient. Having her partner (or another close family member) and infant present during appointments can help in obtaining collateral information and assessing mother-infant bonding. The clinician should also consider whether it is necessary to contact CPS. Many mothers with mental illness appropriately parent their child, but CPS should be alerted when there is a reasonable concern about safe parenting—abuse, neglect, or significant risk.³⁶

Take steps for prevention

An important part of managing PPP is prevention. This involves providing preconception counseling to the woman and her partner.³⁰ Preconception advice should be individualized and include discussion of:

• risks of relapse in pregnancy and the postpartum period
• optimal physical and mental health
• potential risks and benefits of medication options in pregnancy
• potential effects of untreated illness for the fetus, infant, and family
• a strategy outlining whether medication is continued in pregnancy or started in the postpartum period.

Continue to: For women at risk of PPP...

For women at risk of PPP, the risks of medications need to be balanced with the risks of untreated illness. To reduce the risk of PPP relapse, guidelines recommend a robust antenatal care plan that should include^37,38:

• close monitoring of a woman’s mental state for early warning signs of PPP, with active participation from the woman’s partner and family
• ongoing discussion of the risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy (and, for women who prefer to not take medication in the first trimester, a plan for when medications will be restarted)
• collaboration with other professionals involved in care during pregnancy and postpartum (eg, obstetricians, midwives, family practitioners, pediatricians)
• planning to minimize risk factors associated with relapse (eg, sleep deprivation, lack of social supports, domestic violence, and substance abuse).

Evidence clearly suggests that women with bipolar disorder are at increased risk for illness recurrence without continued maintenance medication.³⁹ A subgroup of women with PPP go on to have psychosis limited to the postpartum period, and reinstating prophylactic medication in late pregnancy (preferably) or immediately after birth should be discussed.² The choice of prophylactic medication should be determined by the woman’s previous response.

Regarding prophylaxis, the most evidence exists for lithium.⁶ Lithium use during the first trimester carries a risk of Ebstein’s anomaly. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis have concluded that the teratogenic risks of lithium have been overestimated.^40,41

Lamotrigine is an alternative mood stabilizer with a favorable safety profile in pregnancy. In a small naturalistic study in which lamotrigine was continued in pregnancy in women with bipolar disorder, the medication was effective in preventing relapse in pregnancy and postpartum.⁴² A small population-based cohort study found lamotrigine was as effective as lithium in preventing severe postpartum relapse in women with bipolar disorder,⁴³ although this study was limited by its observational design. Recently published studies have found no significant association between lamotrigine use in pregnancy and congenital malformations.^44,45 While recent evidence suggests that lamotrigine is a reasonable option for treating bipolar disorder during pregnancy, further research is warranted to determine the best clinical practice.⁴⁶ The Box^30,47,48 provides more information regarding prophylactic medications in pregnancy.

Box

Pharmacotherapy can reduce relapse risk

To prevent relapse in the postpartum period, consider initiating treatment with mood stabilizers and/or SGAs, particularly for women with bipolar disorder who do not take medication during pregnancy. A recent meta-analysis found a high postpartum relapse rate (66%) in women with bipolar disorder who did not take prophylactic medication, compared with a relapse rate of 23% for women who did take such medication. In women with psychosis limited to the postpartum period, prophylaxis with lithium or antipsychotics in the immediate postpartum can prevent relapse.³⁹ The SGAs olanzapine and quetiapine are often used to manage acute symptoms because they are considered acceptable during breastfeeding.³³ The use of lithium when breastfeeding is complex to manage⁴⁸ and may require advice to not breastfeed, which can be an important consideration for patients and their families.

Bottom Line

Postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically presents with a rapid onset of hallucinations, delusions, confusion, and mood swings within days to weeks of giving birth. Mothers with PPP almost always require hospitalization for the safety of their infants and themselves. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics are used for acute management.

Related Resources

• Clark CT, Wisner KL. Treatment of peripartum bipolar disorder. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2018;45:403-417.
• Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health. https://womensmentalhealth.org/. 2018.
• Postpartum Support International. Postpartum psychosis. http://www.postpartum.net/learn-more/postpartumpsychosis/. 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Cabergoline • Dostinex
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel

A new mother drowned her 6-month-old daughter in the bathtub. The married woman, who had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had been high functioning and worked in a managerial role prior to giving birth. However, within a day of delivery, her mental state deteriorated. She quickly became convinced that her daughter had a genetic disorder such as achondroplasia. Physical examinations, genetic testing, and x-rays all failed to alleviate her concerns. Examination of her computer revealed thousands of searches for various medical conditions and surgical treatments. After the baby’s death, the mother was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She eventually pled guilty to manslaughter.¹

Mothers with postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically present fulminantly within days to weeks of giving birth. Symptoms of PPP may include not only psychosis, but also confusion and dysphoric mania. These symptoms often wax and wane, which can make it challenging to establish the diagnosis. In addition, many mothers hide their symptoms due to poor insight, delusions, or fear of loss of custody of their infant. In the vast majority of cases, psychiatric hospitalization is required to protect both mother and baby; untreated, there is an elevated risk of both maternal suicide and infanticide. This article discusses the presentation of PPP, its differential diagnosis, risk factors for developing PPP, suicide and infanticide risk assessment, treatment (including during breastfeeding), and prevention.

The bipolar connection

While multiple factors may increase the risk of PPP (Table 1²), women with bipolar disorder have a particularly elevated risk. After experiencing incipient postpartum affective psychosis, a woman has a 50% to 80% chance of having another psychiatric episode, usually within the bipolar spectrum.² Of all women with PPP, 70% to 90% have bipolar illness or schizoaffective disorder, while approximately 12% have schizophrenia.^3,4Women with bipolar disorder are more likely to experience a postpartum psychiatric admission than mothers with any other psychiatric diagnosis⁵ and have an increased risk of PPP by a factor of 100 over the general population.²

For women with bipolar disorder, PPP should be understood as a recurrence of the chronic disease. Recent evidence does suggest, however, that a significant minority of women progress to experience mood and psychotic symptoms only in the postpartum period.^6,7 It is hypothesized that this subgroup of women has a biologic vulnerability to affective psychosis that is limited to the postpartum period. Clinically, understanding a woman’s disease course is important because it may guide decision-making about prophylactic medications during or after pregnancy.

A rapid, delirium-like presentation

Postpartum psychosis is a rare disorder, with a prevalence of 1 to 2 cases per 1,000 childbirths.³ While symptoms may begin days to weeks postpartum, the typical time of onset is between 3 to 10 days after birth, occurring after a woman has been discharged from the hospital and during a time of change and uncertainty. This can make the presentation of PPP a confusing and distressing experience for both the new mother and the family, resulting in delays in seeking care.

Subtle prodromal symptoms may include insomnia, mood fluctuation, and irritability. As symptoms progress, PPP is notable for a rapid onset and a delirium-like appearance that may include waxing and waning cognitive symptoms such as disorientation and confusion.⁸ Grossly disorganized behaviors and rapid mood fluctuations are typical. Distinct from mood episodes outside the peripartum period, women with PPP often experience mood-incongruent delusions and obsessive thoughts, often focused on their child.⁹ Women with PPP appear less likely to experience thought insertion or withdrawal or auditory hallucinations that give a running commentary.²

Differential diagnosis includes depression, OCD

When evaluating a woman with possible postpartum psychotic symptoms or delirium, it is important to include a thorough history, physical examination, and relevant laboratory and/or imaging investigations to assess for organic causes or contributors (Table 2^2,6,10-12 and Table 3^2,6,10-12). A detailed psychiatric history should establish whether the patient is presenting with new-onset psychosis or has had previous mood or psychotic episodes that may have gone undetected. Important perinatal psychiatric differential diagnoses should include “baby blues,” postpartum depression (PPD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Continue to: PPP vs "baby blues."

PPP vs “baby blues.” “Baby blues” is not an official DSM-5 diagnosis but rather a normative postpartum experience that affects 50% to 80% of postpartum women. A woman with the “baby blues” may feel weepy or have mild mood lability, irritability, or anxiety; however, these symptoms do not significantly impair function. Peak symptoms typically occur between 2 to 5 days postpartum and generally resolve within 2 weeks. Women who have the “baby blues” are at an increased risk for PPD and should be monitored over time.^13,14

PPP vs PPD. Postpartum depression affects approximately 10% to 15% of new mothers.¹⁵ Women with PPD may experience feelings of persistent and severe sadness, feelings of detachment, insomnia, and fatigue. Symptoms of PPD can interfere with a mother’s interest in caring for her baby and present a barrier to maternal bonding.^16,17

As the awareness of PPD has increased in recent years, screening for depressive symptoms during and after pregnancy has increasingly become the standard of care.¹⁸ When evaluating a postpartum woman for PPD, it is important to consider PPP in the differential. Women with severe or persistent depressive symptoms may also develop psychotic symptoms. Furthermore, suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming the infant may be present in either PPD or PPP. One study found that 41% of mothers with depression endorsed thoughts of harming their infants.¹⁹

PPP vs postpartum OCD. Postpartum obsessive-compulsive symptoms commonly occur comorbidly with PPD,⁹ and OCD often presents for the first time in the postpartum period.²⁰ Obsessive-compulsive disorder affects between 2% to 9% of new mothers.^21,22 It is critical to properly differentiate PPP from postpartum OCD. Clinical questions should be posed with a non-judgmental stance. Just as delusions in PPP are often focused on the infant, for women with OCD, obsessive thoughts may center on worries about the infant’s safety. Distressing obsessions about violence are common in OCD.²³ Mothers with OCD may experience intrusive thinking about accidentally or purposefully harming their infant. For example, they may intrusively worry that they will accidentally put the baby in the microwave or oven, leave the baby in a hot car, or throw the baby down the stairs. However, a postpartum woman with OCD may be reluctant to share her ego-dystonic thoughts of infant harm. Mothers with OCD are not out of touch with reality; instead, their intrusive thoughts are ego-dystonic and distressing. These are thoughts and fears that they focus on and try to avoid, rather than plan. The psychiatrist must carefully differentiate between ego-syntonic and ego-dystonic thoughts. These patients often avoid seeking treatment because of their shame and guilt.²³ Clinicians often under-recognize OCD and risk inappropriate hospitalization, treatment, and inappropriate referral to Child Protective Services (CPS).²³

Perinatal psychiatric risk assessment

When a mother develops PPP, consider the risks of suicide, child harm, and infanticide. Although suicide risk is generally lower in the postpartum period, suicide is the cause of 20% of postpartum deaths.^24,25 When PPP is untreated, suicide risk is elevated. A careful suicide risk assessment should be completed.

Continue to: Particularly in PPP...

Particularly in PPP, a mother may be at risk of child neglect or abuse due to her confused or delusional thinking and mood state.²⁶ For example, one mother heated empty bottles and gave them to her baby, and then became frustrated when the baby continued to cry.

The risk of infanticide is also elevated in untreated PPP, with approximately 4% of these women committing infanticide.⁹ There are 5 motives for infanticide (Table 4²⁷). Altruistic and acutely psychotic motives are more likely to be related to PPP, while fatal maltreatment, unwanted child, and partner revenge motives are less likely to be related to PPP. Among mothers who kill both their child and themselves (filicide-suicide), altruistic motives were the most common.²⁸ Mothers in psychiatric samples who kill their children have often experienced psychosis, suicidality, depression, and significant life stresses.²⁷ Both infanticidal ideas and behaviors have been associated with psychotic thinking about the infant,²⁹ so it is critical to ascertain whether the mother’s delusions or hallucinations involve the infant.³⁰ In contrast, neonaticide (murder in the first day of life) is rarely related to PPP because PPP typically has a later onset.³¹

Treating acute PPP

The fulminant nature of PPP can make its treatment difficult. Thinking through the case in an organized fashion is critical (Table 5).

Hospitalization. Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency with a rapid onset of symptoms. Hospitalization is required in almost all cases for diagnostic evaluation, assessment and management of safety, and initiation of treatment. While maternal-infant bonding in the perinatal period is important, infant safety is critical and usually requires maternal psychiatric hospitalization.

The specialized mother-baby psychiatric unit (MBU) is a model of care first developed in the United Kingdom and is now available in many European countries as well as in New Zealand and Australia. Mother-baby psychiatric units admit the mother and the baby together and provide dyadic treatment to allow for enhanced bonding and parenting support, and often to encourage breastfeeding.³⁰ In the United States, there has been growing interest in specialized inpatient settings that acknowledge the importance of maternal-infant attachment in the treatment of perinatal disorders and provide care with a dyadic focus; however, differences in the health care payer system have been a barrier to full-scale MBUs. The Perinatal Psychiatry Inpatient Unit at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill is among the first of such a model in the United States.³²

Continue to: Although this specialized treatment setting...

Although this specialized treatment setting is unlikely to be available in most American cities, treatment should still consider the maternal role. When possible, the infant should stay with the father or family members during the mother’s hospitalization, and supervised visits should be arranged when appropriate. If the mother is breastfeeding, or plans to breastfeed after the hospitalization, the treatment team may consider providing supervised use of a breast pump and making arrangements for breast milk storage. During the mother’s hospitalization, staff should provide psychoeducation and convey hopefulness and support.

Medication management. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are often used for acute management of PPP. The choice of medication is determined by individual symptoms, severity of presentation, previous response to medication, and maternal adverse effects.³⁰ In a naturalistic study of 64 women admitted for new-onset PPP, sequential administration of benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and lithium was found to be effective in achieving remission for 99% of patients, with 80% sustaining remission at 9 months postpartum.⁶ Second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and quetiapine are especially helpful because they can manage multiple symptoms, including insomnia, mood-related symptoms, and anxiety, although the risk of maternal weight gain and sedation (which could impair a mother’s ability to respond to her infant) should be discussed with the patient and needs to be monitored.³³ Antidepressants should be avoided due to the risk of inducing rapid cycling or mixed mood states, although these medications may be considered for patients with PPD or postpartum OCD. Lactation inhibitors, such as bromocriptine and cabergoline, also should be avoided because they are dopamine agonists and can exacerbate psychosis. Electroconvulsive therapy is a safe and effective treatment for PPP and can be considered first-line treatment for high-risk patients when rapid improvement is needed.³⁴ It has been proposed as a primary treatment for women with catatonia, agitation, compromised nutritional status due to refusal to eat or drink, high suicidality, or treatment resistance.³⁰

Breastfeeding. It is important to discuss breastfeeding with the mother and her partner or family. The patient’s preference, the maternal and infant benefits of breastfeeding, the potential for sleep disruption, and the safety profile of needed medications should all be considered. Because sleep loss is a modifiable risk factor in PPP, the benefits of breastfeeding may be outweighed by the risks for some patients.⁹ For others, breastfeeding during the day and bottle-feeding at night may be preferred. Including the partner in this discussion and planning is important because they can play a crucial role in taking over some of the nightly feedings to facilitate maternal sleep. Give the family information about options for support in the home, such as doulas and baby nannies. The Related Resources lists a recent review of risks and benefits of mood stabilizers and antipsychotics during breastfeeding.

What to consider during discharge planning

Discharge arrangements require careful consideration (Table 6). Meet with the family prior to discharge to provide psychoeducation and to underscore the importance of family involvement with both mother and infant. It is important to ensure adequate support at home, including at night, since sleep is critical to improved stability. Encourage the patient and her family to monitor for early warning signs of relapse, which might include refractory insomnia, mood instability, poor judgment, or hypomanic symptoms.³⁵ She should be followed closely as an outpatient. Having her partner (or another close family member) and infant present during appointments can help in obtaining collateral information and assessing mother-infant bonding. The clinician should also consider whether it is necessary to contact CPS. Many mothers with mental illness appropriately parent their child, but CPS should be alerted when there is a reasonable concern about safe parenting—abuse, neglect, or significant risk.³⁶

Take steps for prevention

An important part of managing PPP is prevention. This involves providing preconception counseling to the woman and her partner.³⁰ Preconception advice should be individualized and include discussion of:

• risks of relapse in pregnancy and the postpartum period
• optimal physical and mental health
• potential risks and benefits of medication options in pregnancy
• potential effects of untreated illness for the fetus, infant, and family
• a strategy outlining whether medication is continued in pregnancy or started in the postpartum period.

Continue to: For women at risk of PPP...

For women at risk of PPP, the risks of medications need to be balanced with the risks of untreated illness. To reduce the risk of PPP relapse, guidelines recommend a robust antenatal care plan that should include^37,38:

• close monitoring of a woman’s mental state for early warning signs of PPP, with active participation from the woman’s partner and family
• ongoing discussion of the risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy (and, for women who prefer to not take medication in the first trimester, a plan for when medications will be restarted)
• collaboration with other professionals involved in care during pregnancy and postpartum (eg, obstetricians, midwives, family practitioners, pediatricians)
• planning to minimize risk factors associated with relapse (eg, sleep deprivation, lack of social supports, domestic violence, and substance abuse).

Evidence clearly suggests that women with bipolar disorder are at increased risk for illness recurrence without continued maintenance medication.³⁹ A subgroup of women with PPP go on to have psychosis limited to the postpartum period, and reinstating prophylactic medication in late pregnancy (preferably) or immediately after birth should be discussed.² The choice of prophylactic medication should be determined by the woman’s previous response.

Regarding prophylaxis, the most evidence exists for lithium.⁶ Lithium use during the first trimester carries a risk of Ebstein’s anomaly. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis have concluded that the teratogenic risks of lithium have been overestimated.^40,41

Lamotrigine is an alternative mood stabilizer with a favorable safety profile in pregnancy. In a small naturalistic study in which lamotrigine was continued in pregnancy in women with bipolar disorder, the medication was effective in preventing relapse in pregnancy and postpartum.⁴² A small population-based cohort study found lamotrigine was as effective as lithium in preventing severe postpartum relapse in women with bipolar disorder,⁴³ although this study was limited by its observational design. Recently published studies have found no significant association between lamotrigine use in pregnancy and congenital malformations.^44,45 While recent evidence suggests that lamotrigine is a reasonable option for treating bipolar disorder during pregnancy, further research is warranted to determine the best clinical practice.⁴⁶ The Box^30,47,48 provides more information regarding prophylactic medications in pregnancy.

Box

Pharmacotherapy can reduce relapse risk

To prevent relapse in the postpartum period, consider initiating treatment with mood stabilizers and/or SGAs, particularly for women with bipolar disorder who do not take medication during pregnancy. A recent meta-analysis found a high postpartum relapse rate (66%) in women with bipolar disorder who did not take prophylactic medication, compared with a relapse rate of 23% for women who did take such medication. In women with psychosis limited to the postpartum period, prophylaxis with lithium or antipsychotics in the immediate postpartum can prevent relapse.³⁹ The SGAs olanzapine and quetiapine are often used to manage acute symptoms because they are considered acceptable during breastfeeding.³³ The use of lithium when breastfeeding is complex to manage⁴⁸ and may require advice to not breastfeed, which can be an important consideration for patients and their families.

Bottom Line

Postpartum psychosis (PPP) typically presents with a rapid onset of hallucinations, delusions, confusion, and mood swings within days to weeks of giving birth. Mothers with PPP almost always require hospitalization for the safety of their infants and themselves. Mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics are used for acute management.

Related Resources

• Clark CT, Wisner KL. Treatment of peripartum bipolar disorder. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2018;45:403-417.
• Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health. https://womensmentalhealth.org/. 2018.
• Postpartum Support International. Postpartum psychosis. http://www.postpartum.net/learn-more/postpartumpsychosis/. 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Cabergoline • Dostinex
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Proposed changes to federal mammography regulations aim to provide more information for doctors and patients, as well as standardize patient information on breast density’s impact on screening.

The Food and Drug Administration posted a new proposed rule online March 27 that would “expand the information mammography facilities must provide to patients and health care professionals, allowing for more informed medical decision making,” the agency said in a statement. “It would also modernize mammography quality standards and better position the FDA to enforce regulations that apply to the safety and quality of mammography services.”

Key among the proposed changes is the addition of breast density information to the summary letter provided to patients and to the medical report provided to referring health care professionals.

“The FDA is proposing specific language that would explain how breast density can influence the accuracy of mammography and would recommend patients with dense breasts talk to their health care provider about high breast density and how it relates to breast cancer risk and their individual situation,” the agency said in a statement.

Laurie Margolies, MD, section chief of breast imaging at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said the regulations would bring some uniformity to the communication process.

“It builds on the experience of the 37 states and the District of Columbia, all of whom have passed dense breast notification laws, and can serve to unify those disparate regulations into one that would be uniform throughout the country to give one clear message to women and health care providers,” Dr. Margolies said in an interview.

She noted that dense breasts are very common and communicating issues that are related to them, including the potential need for supplemental screening, are important.

“Almost half of American women have dense breasts and why that is significant is because the dense breast issue not only increases one’s risk of getting breast cancer, but it also can hide small breast cancers on the mammogram,” she said.

If you take 1,000 women with dense breasts and then do a breast ultrasound as a supplemental screening measure, “you will find three more small node-negative breast cancers that would not have come to light if you didn’t do the extra supplemental screening,” underscoring the importance of communicating dense breast information, she continued.

FDA also is seeking to enhance information provided to health care professionals by codifying three additional categories for mammogram assessments, including the addition of the “known biopsy proven malignancy” category, which the agency says would help identify which scans were being used to evaluate treatment of already diagnosed cancers.

Both patients and health care professionals would receive more detailed information about the mammography facility under the proposed rule.

FDA is proposing modernization of quality standards to help the agency enforce regulations, including giving the agency the authority to notify patients and health care professionals directly if a mammography facility does not meet quality standards and that a reevaluation or repeat of the exam at a different facility may be needed. The proposed amendments also include requiring that only digital accessory components specifically FDA approved or cleared for mammography be used or that facilities use components that otherwise meet the requirements, and stronger record-keeping requirements.

Dr. Margolies did note one potential deficiency in the proposed rule – the lack of any information on health insurance coverage of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts, though she noted this may not fall under the FDA’s authority.

“It would do the most good if everybody could get the supplemental screening without regards to their ability to pay for it out of pocket,” she said.

The proposal amends regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, which gives FDA oversight authority over mammography facilities, including accreditation, certification, annual inspection, and enforcement of standards.

Comments on the proposal are due 90 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for March 28.

[email protected]

Proposed changes to federal mammography regulations aim to provide more information for doctors and patients, as well as standardize patient information on breast density’s impact on screening.

The Food and Drug Administration posted a new proposed rule online March 27 that would “expand the information mammography facilities must provide to patients and health care professionals, allowing for more informed medical decision making,” the agency said in a statement. “It would also modernize mammography quality standards and better position the FDA to enforce regulations that apply to the safety and quality of mammography services.”

Key among the proposed changes is the addition of breast density information to the summary letter provided to patients and to the medical report provided to referring health care professionals.

“The FDA is proposing specific language that would explain how breast density can influence the accuracy of mammography and would recommend patients with dense breasts talk to their health care provider about high breast density and how it relates to breast cancer risk and their individual situation,” the agency said in a statement.

Laurie Margolies, MD, section chief of breast imaging at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said the regulations would bring some uniformity to the communication process.

“It builds on the experience of the 37 states and the District of Columbia, all of whom have passed dense breast notification laws, and can serve to unify those disparate regulations into one that would be uniform throughout the country to give one clear message to women and health care providers,” Dr. Margolies said in an interview.

She noted that dense breasts are very common and communicating issues that are related to them, including the potential need for supplemental screening, are important.

“Almost half of American women have dense breasts and why that is significant is because the dense breast issue not only increases one’s risk of getting breast cancer, but it also can hide small breast cancers on the mammogram,” she said.

If you take 1,000 women with dense breasts and then do a breast ultrasound as a supplemental screening measure, “you will find three more small node-negative breast cancers that would not have come to light if you didn’t do the extra supplemental screening,” underscoring the importance of communicating dense breast information, she continued.

FDA also is seeking to enhance information provided to health care professionals by codifying three additional categories for mammogram assessments, including the addition of the “known biopsy proven malignancy” category, which the agency says would help identify which scans were being used to evaluate treatment of already diagnosed cancers.

Both patients and health care professionals would receive more detailed information about the mammography facility under the proposed rule.

FDA is proposing modernization of quality standards to help the agency enforce regulations, including giving the agency the authority to notify patients and health care professionals directly if a mammography facility does not meet quality standards and that a reevaluation or repeat of the exam at a different facility may be needed. The proposed amendments also include requiring that only digital accessory components specifically FDA approved or cleared for mammography be used or that facilities use components that otherwise meet the requirements, and stronger record-keeping requirements.

Dr. Margolies did note one potential deficiency in the proposed rule – the lack of any information on health insurance coverage of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts, though she noted this may not fall under the FDA’s authority.

“It would do the most good if everybody could get the supplemental screening without regards to their ability to pay for it out of pocket,” she said.

The proposal amends regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, which gives FDA oversight authority over mammography facilities, including accreditation, certification, annual inspection, and enforcement of standards.

Comments on the proposal are due 90 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for March 28.

[email protected]

Proposed changes to federal mammography regulations aim to provide more information for doctors and patients, as well as standardize patient information on breast density’s impact on screening.

The Food and Drug Administration posted a new proposed rule online March 27 that would “expand the information mammography facilities must provide to patients and health care professionals, allowing for more informed medical decision making,” the agency said in a statement. “It would also modernize mammography quality standards and better position the FDA to enforce regulations that apply to the safety and quality of mammography services.”

Key among the proposed changes is the addition of breast density information to the summary letter provided to patients and to the medical report provided to referring health care professionals.

“The FDA is proposing specific language that would explain how breast density can influence the accuracy of mammography and would recommend patients with dense breasts talk to their health care provider about high breast density and how it relates to breast cancer risk and their individual situation,” the agency said in a statement.

Laurie Margolies, MD, section chief of breast imaging at Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said the regulations would bring some uniformity to the communication process.

“It builds on the experience of the 37 states and the District of Columbia, all of whom have passed dense breast notification laws, and can serve to unify those disparate regulations into one that would be uniform throughout the country to give one clear message to women and health care providers,” Dr. Margolies said in an interview.

She noted that dense breasts are very common and communicating issues that are related to them, including the potential need for supplemental screening, are important.

“Almost half of American women have dense breasts and why that is significant is because the dense breast issue not only increases one’s risk of getting breast cancer, but it also can hide small breast cancers on the mammogram,” she said.

If you take 1,000 women with dense breasts and then do a breast ultrasound as a supplemental screening measure, “you will find three more small node-negative breast cancers that would not have come to light if you didn’t do the extra supplemental screening,” underscoring the importance of communicating dense breast information, she continued.

FDA also is seeking to enhance information provided to health care professionals by codifying three additional categories for mammogram assessments, including the addition of the “known biopsy proven malignancy” category, which the agency says would help identify which scans were being used to evaluate treatment of already diagnosed cancers.

Both patients and health care professionals would receive more detailed information about the mammography facility under the proposed rule.

FDA is proposing modernization of quality standards to help the agency enforce regulations, including giving the agency the authority to notify patients and health care professionals directly if a mammography facility does not meet quality standards and that a reevaluation or repeat of the exam at a different facility may be needed. The proposed amendments also include requiring that only digital accessory components specifically FDA approved or cleared for mammography be used or that facilities use components that otherwise meet the requirements, and stronger record-keeping requirements.

Dr. Margolies did note one potential deficiency in the proposed rule – the lack of any information on health insurance coverage of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts, though she noted this may not fall under the FDA’s authority.

“It would do the most good if everybody could get the supplemental screening without regards to their ability to pay for it out of pocket,” she said.

The proposal amends regulations issued under the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, which gives FDA oversight authority over mammography facilities, including accreditation, certification, annual inspection, and enforcement of standards.

Comments on the proposal are due 90 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for March 28.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – In new guidelines for the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have been identified as the first-line therapy with denosumab (Prolia) listed as an acceptable alternative that is particularly well suited for high-risk patients, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We hope our guideline will not only improve patient care but provide confidence in treatment,” reported guideline writing committee member Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough.

The new guidelines are evidence based, relying on randomized, controlled trials to evaluate the data quality of treatment options with GRADE methodology, but Dr. Rosen said that the guideline writing committee also considered patient preferences because of concerns about the abundant evidence that adherence to pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis is poor.

“There is a considerable gap in the treatment of osteoporosis. Most women will not take anti-osteoporosis therapies despite their efficacy, and those who do often stop,” Dr. Rosen observed. He said it was the intention of the writing committee to provide acceptable recommendations with a clear outline of benefits and risks in order to enlist patients more successfully in understanding and participating in fracture prevention.


The Endocrine Society guidelines, which are available online and will soon appear in print (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1-28), are focused on pharmacologic management and therefore differ from guidelines on diagnosis and treatment published previously by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) (Endocr Pract. 2016;22[Suppl 4]:1-42).

The AACE guidelines, which devote considerable space to prevention, indicated that bisphosphonates should “be generally considered as initial options for most patients who are candidates for treatment.” The AACE guidelines identify denosumab as the “treatment of choice” in patients with renal insufficiency (although not in those on dialysis or with end-stage renal disease).

In outlining some of the key features of the new guidelines at ENDO 2019, Dr. Rosen drew attention to a call for reevaluation of the need for bisphosphonates after patients have been on this therapy for 3 or more years. For those found at this time to be at low or moderate risk of fracture, a drug holiday is recommended based on guideline-cited evidence that bisphosphonates offer a residual therapeutic effect after stopping.

However, stopping is not recommended in those who remain at high risk. In these patients, bone density should be monitored at regular intervals for the goal of switching or intensifying therapy if needed. This includes use of teriparatide (Forteo) or abaloparatide (Tymlos) for periods of up to 2 years in patients with a history of severe or multiple fractures. These and other choices are included in a detailed algorithm covering both low- and high-risk patients.


Although many postmenopausal women hope to avoid pharmacologic therapy with high dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D, Dr. Rosen stressed the limited benefit of these nutrients in preventing fracture for those with established osteoporosis. While acknowledging that calcium and vitamin D enhance mineralization and maintenance of bone mass, he characterized them as “supplements” once pharmacologic therapies are indicated.

Unsurprisingly, patients prefer oral therapies that are effective but with a low burden of adverse events, according to a review of evidence undertaken by the guideline committee. Cost was a less important consideration. Dr. Rosen indicated that recognizing patient goals and priorities while explaining relative risks might engage patients in selecting a therapy to which they are willing to adhere.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships.

NEW ORLEANS – In new guidelines for the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have been identified as the first-line therapy with denosumab (Prolia) listed as an acceptable alternative that is particularly well suited for high-risk patients, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We hope our guideline will not only improve patient care but provide confidence in treatment,” reported guideline writing committee member Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough.

The new guidelines are evidence based, relying on randomized, controlled trials to evaluate the data quality of treatment options with GRADE methodology, but Dr. Rosen said that the guideline writing committee also considered patient preferences because of concerns about the abundant evidence that adherence to pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis is poor.

“There is a considerable gap in the treatment of osteoporosis. Most women will not take anti-osteoporosis therapies despite their efficacy, and those who do often stop,” Dr. Rosen observed. He said it was the intention of the writing committee to provide acceptable recommendations with a clear outline of benefits and risks in order to enlist patients more successfully in understanding and participating in fracture prevention.


The Endocrine Society guidelines, which are available online and will soon appear in print (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1-28), are focused on pharmacologic management and therefore differ from guidelines on diagnosis and treatment published previously by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) (Endocr Pract. 2016;22[Suppl 4]:1-42).

The AACE guidelines, which devote considerable space to prevention, indicated that bisphosphonates should “be generally considered as initial options for most patients who are candidates for treatment.” The AACE guidelines identify denosumab as the “treatment of choice” in patients with renal insufficiency (although not in those on dialysis or with end-stage renal disease).

In outlining some of the key features of the new guidelines at ENDO 2019, Dr. Rosen drew attention to a call for reevaluation of the need for bisphosphonates after patients have been on this therapy for 3 or more years. For those found at this time to be at low or moderate risk of fracture, a drug holiday is recommended based on guideline-cited evidence that bisphosphonates offer a residual therapeutic effect after stopping.

However, stopping is not recommended in those who remain at high risk. In these patients, bone density should be monitored at regular intervals for the goal of switching or intensifying therapy if needed. This includes use of teriparatide (Forteo) or abaloparatide (Tymlos) for periods of up to 2 years in patients with a history of severe or multiple fractures. These and other choices are included in a detailed algorithm covering both low- and high-risk patients.


Although many postmenopausal women hope to avoid pharmacologic therapy with high dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D, Dr. Rosen stressed the limited benefit of these nutrients in preventing fracture for those with established osteoporosis. While acknowledging that calcium and vitamin D enhance mineralization and maintenance of bone mass, he characterized them as “supplements” once pharmacologic therapies are indicated.

Unsurprisingly, patients prefer oral therapies that are effective but with a low burden of adverse events, according to a review of evidence undertaken by the guideline committee. Cost was a less important consideration. Dr. Rosen indicated that recognizing patient goals and priorities while explaining relative risks might engage patients in selecting a therapy to which they are willing to adhere.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships.

NEW ORLEANS – In new guidelines for the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis, bisphosphonates have been identified as the first-line therapy with denosumab (Prolia) listed as an acceptable alternative that is particularly well suited for high-risk patients, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

“We hope our guideline will not only improve patient care but provide confidence in treatment,” reported guideline writing committee member Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough.

The new guidelines are evidence based, relying on randomized, controlled trials to evaluate the data quality of treatment options with GRADE methodology, but Dr. Rosen said that the guideline writing committee also considered patient preferences because of concerns about the abundant evidence that adherence to pharmacologic therapies for osteoporosis is poor.

“There is a considerable gap in the treatment of osteoporosis. Most women will not take anti-osteoporosis therapies despite their efficacy, and those who do often stop,” Dr. Rosen observed. He said it was the intention of the writing committee to provide acceptable recommendations with a clear outline of benefits and risks in order to enlist patients more successfully in understanding and participating in fracture prevention.


The Endocrine Society guidelines, which are available online and will soon appear in print (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104:1-28), are focused on pharmacologic management and therefore differ from guidelines on diagnosis and treatment published previously by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) (Endocr Pract. 2016;22[Suppl 4]:1-42).

The AACE guidelines, which devote considerable space to prevention, indicated that bisphosphonates should “be generally considered as initial options for most patients who are candidates for treatment.” The AACE guidelines identify denosumab as the “treatment of choice” in patients with renal insufficiency (although not in those on dialysis or with end-stage renal disease).

In outlining some of the key features of the new guidelines at ENDO 2019, Dr. Rosen drew attention to a call for reevaluation of the need for bisphosphonates after patients have been on this therapy for 3 or more years. For those found at this time to be at low or moderate risk of fracture, a drug holiday is recommended based on guideline-cited evidence that bisphosphonates offer a residual therapeutic effect after stopping.

However, stopping is not recommended in those who remain at high risk. In these patients, bone density should be monitored at regular intervals for the goal of switching or intensifying therapy if needed. This includes use of teriparatide (Forteo) or abaloparatide (Tymlos) for periods of up to 2 years in patients with a history of severe or multiple fractures. These and other choices are included in a detailed algorithm covering both low- and high-risk patients.


Although many postmenopausal women hope to avoid pharmacologic therapy with high dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D, Dr. Rosen stressed the limited benefit of these nutrients in preventing fracture for those with established osteoporosis. While acknowledging that calcium and vitamin D enhance mineralization and maintenance of bone mass, he characterized them as “supplements” once pharmacologic therapies are indicated.

Unsurprisingly, patients prefer oral therapies that are effective but with a low burden of adverse events, according to a review of evidence undertaken by the guideline committee. Cost was a less important consideration. Dr. Rosen indicated that recognizing patient goals and priorities while explaining relative risks might engage patients in selecting a therapy to which they are willing to adhere.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.

Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.

“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.

The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.

Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.

The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.

Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.

A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.

About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.

“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.

[email protected]

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.

Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.

“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.

The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.

Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.

The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.

Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.

A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.

About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.

“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.

[email protected]

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.

Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.

“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.

The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.

Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.

Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.

The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.

Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.

A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.

About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.

“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Hot flash frequency was reduced by up to threefold in phase 2b results for fezolinetant, a novel nonhormonal therapy.

Vidyard Video

The neurokinin-3–receptor (NK3R) antagonist showed a significant reduction of 1.8-2.6 mean hot flashes daily from placebo in twice-daily dosing at the end of 12 weeks, despite a strong 55% response rate to placebo, Graeme Fraser, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

Once-daily dosing also significantly dropped the frequency of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms by 2.1-2.6 events daily, compared with placebo at the end of 12 weeks.

“This phase 2b trial was really about looking at different dose levels and looking at the once-daily versus twice-daily dosing,” Dr. Fraser said in a video interview. “The efficacy of both, with regard to once-daily and twice-daily dosing, was clear.”

The investigators looked at doses ranging from 15 mg to 90 mg twice daily and 30-120 mg daily. Significant reductions in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes were seen at all doses and frequencies at 4 weeks and 12 weeks.

A coprimary endpoint, vasomotor severity, was also significantly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest twice-daily doses. Hot flash severity was similarly reduced at 12 weeks for the two highest once-daily doses.

The safety profile was generally good; there were no signs of suicidality, no changes in endometrial thickness judged by ultrasound or endometrial biopsy, and estradiol levels were unchanged. Plasma bone markers, other laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were also unchanged.

A total of nine women experienced asymptomatic elevations in liver enzymes without bilirubin elevation. Most of these elevations were below three times the upper limit of normal.

Across 51 study sites in the United States, a total of 352 women received one dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis. Efficacy was analyzed for 349 women, and 287 (81%) were considered completers.

Women were included in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study if they were naturally or surgically menopausal and aged 40-65 years, and experiencing at least 50 moderate to severe hot flashes weekly.

Fezolinetant acts on the KNDy neuron by replacing estrogen’s inhibitory effects. “Normally the firing is controlled by estrogen, but of course, in menopause, estrogen levels drop, and that control is lost,” explained Dr. Fraser. Fezolinetant exerts antagonism on the KNDy neuron’s NK3 receptor. “Why that’s important is that this neuron synapses at the thermoregulatory centers of the brain.”

Dr. Fraser said that discussions are underway with regulatory authorities to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

Dr. Fraser is a consultant to Astellas and was formerly a principal in Ogeda, the developer of fezolinetant. Ogeda is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Astellas, which funded the phase 2B trial.

[email protected]

Survival rates for preterm infants improved significantly in Sweden after the adoption of new perinatal management guidelines, based on data from a study of two cohorts including 2,205 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age.

Herjua/Thinkstock

The impact of the recommendations has not been well studied, wrote Mikael Norman, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his colleagues in JAMA. To determine the impact, the researchers compared data from 1,009 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2004-2007 with 1,196 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2014-2016, after the implementation of guidelines on “centralization of care, antenatal corticosteroid treatment, mode of delivery, a neonatologist attending at the birth, and resuscitation of infants delivered at 22, 23, and 24 weeks’ gestational age.”

The 1-year survival increased from 70% during 2004-2007 to 77% during 2014-2016; a significant improvement (P = .003).

In addition, 1-year survival with no major morbidity improved significantly between the two time periods, from 32% to 38%, respectively (P = .008).

The mothers and infants were part of EXPRESS (Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden Study), a national, population-based, prospective cohort study. In most cases, gestational age was determined by routine antenatal ultrasound early in the second trimester, or by date of embryo transfer in cases of in vitro fertilization. The primary outcome was survival at the age of 1 year; the secondary outcome was survival at 1 year with no major neonatal comorbidity.

Among premature infants who survived at 1 year, some conditions were significantly more prevalent in the earlier birth cohort, compared with the later cohort, notably cystic periventricular leukomalacia (6% vs. 2%), any bronchopulmonary dysplasia (73% vs. 62%), and severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (25% vs. 14%).

Although the proportion of premature births with a neonatologist attending was similar between the two cohorts, significantly more premature infants were born outside of university hospitals and transported to a level III neonatal ICU after birth during 2004-2007, compared with 2014-2016, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the second cohort, inability to account for fetal losses prior to 22 weeks’ gestational age, lack of data on the causes of fetal and infant deaths, potentially unknown confounding variables that impacted infant survival, and the small sample size of some gestational age groups, the researchers noted. However, the results show improvements in 1-year survival in the wake of specific guidelines on perinatal management.

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation and the H2020/European Union, as well as personal fees from a Swedish medical journal, the Swedish patient insurance, Liber, Studentlitteratur, and AbbVie. The study was funded by the Swedish Order of Freemasons’ Foundation for Children’s Welfare.

SOURCE: Norman M et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1188-99.

Survival rates for preterm infants improved significantly in Sweden after the adoption of new perinatal management guidelines, based on data from a study of two cohorts including 2,205 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age.

Herjua/Thinkstock

The impact of the recommendations has not been well studied, wrote Mikael Norman, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his colleagues in JAMA. To determine the impact, the researchers compared data from 1,009 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2004-2007 with 1,196 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2014-2016, after the implementation of guidelines on “centralization of care, antenatal corticosteroid treatment, mode of delivery, a neonatologist attending at the birth, and resuscitation of infants delivered at 22, 23, and 24 weeks’ gestational age.”

The 1-year survival increased from 70% during 2004-2007 to 77% during 2014-2016; a significant improvement (P = .003).

In addition, 1-year survival with no major morbidity improved significantly between the two time periods, from 32% to 38%, respectively (P = .008).

The mothers and infants were part of EXPRESS (Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden Study), a national, population-based, prospective cohort study. In most cases, gestational age was determined by routine antenatal ultrasound early in the second trimester, or by date of embryo transfer in cases of in vitro fertilization. The primary outcome was survival at the age of 1 year; the secondary outcome was survival at 1 year with no major neonatal comorbidity.

Among premature infants who survived at 1 year, some conditions were significantly more prevalent in the earlier birth cohort, compared with the later cohort, notably cystic periventricular leukomalacia (6% vs. 2%), any bronchopulmonary dysplasia (73% vs. 62%), and severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (25% vs. 14%).

Although the proportion of premature births with a neonatologist attending was similar between the two cohorts, significantly more premature infants were born outside of university hospitals and transported to a level III neonatal ICU after birth during 2004-2007, compared with 2014-2016, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the second cohort, inability to account for fetal losses prior to 22 weeks’ gestational age, lack of data on the causes of fetal and infant deaths, potentially unknown confounding variables that impacted infant survival, and the small sample size of some gestational age groups, the researchers noted. However, the results show improvements in 1-year survival in the wake of specific guidelines on perinatal management.

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation and the H2020/European Union, as well as personal fees from a Swedish medical journal, the Swedish patient insurance, Liber, Studentlitteratur, and AbbVie. The study was funded by the Swedish Order of Freemasons’ Foundation for Children’s Welfare.

SOURCE: Norman M et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1188-99.

Survival rates for preterm infants improved significantly in Sweden after the adoption of new perinatal management guidelines, based on data from a study of two cohorts including 2,205 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age.

Herjua/Thinkstock

The impact of the recommendations has not been well studied, wrote Mikael Norman, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his colleagues in JAMA. To determine the impact, the researchers compared data from 1,009 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2004-2007 with 1,196 births at 22-26 weeks’ gestational age during 2014-2016, after the implementation of guidelines on “centralization of care, antenatal corticosteroid treatment, mode of delivery, a neonatologist attending at the birth, and resuscitation of infants delivered at 22, 23, and 24 weeks’ gestational age.”

The 1-year survival increased from 70% during 2004-2007 to 77% during 2014-2016; a significant improvement (P = .003).

In addition, 1-year survival with no major morbidity improved significantly between the two time periods, from 32% to 38%, respectively (P = .008).

The mothers and infants were part of EXPRESS (Extremely Preterm Infants in Sweden Study), a national, population-based, prospective cohort study. In most cases, gestational age was determined by routine antenatal ultrasound early in the second trimester, or by date of embryo transfer in cases of in vitro fertilization. The primary outcome was survival at the age of 1 year; the secondary outcome was survival at 1 year with no major neonatal comorbidity.

Among premature infants who survived at 1 year, some conditions were significantly more prevalent in the earlier birth cohort, compared with the later cohort, notably cystic periventricular leukomalacia (6% vs. 2%), any bronchopulmonary dysplasia (73% vs. 62%), and severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (25% vs. 14%).

Although the proportion of premature births with a neonatologist attending was similar between the two cohorts, significantly more premature infants were born outside of university hospitals and transported to a level III neonatal ICU after birth during 2004-2007, compared with 2014-2016, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the second cohort, inability to account for fetal losses prior to 22 weeks’ gestational age, lack of data on the causes of fetal and infant deaths, potentially unknown confounding variables that impacted infant survival, and the small sample size of some gestational age groups, the researchers noted. However, the results show improvements in 1-year survival in the wake of specific guidelines on perinatal management.

Dr. Norman reported receiving grants from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation and the H2020/European Union, as well as personal fees from a Swedish medical journal, the Swedish patient insurance, Liber, Studentlitteratur, and AbbVie. The study was funded by the Swedish Order of Freemasons’ Foundation for Children’s Welfare.

SOURCE: Norman M et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1188-99.