A new survey-based estimate puts the prevalence of vitiligo somewhere between 0.76% and 1.11% in the United States and suggests that 40% of adults with the autoimmune disorder may be undiagnosed.

“The remarkably high number of participants with undiagnosed vitiligo” indicates a need for “the development and validation of teledermatology apps that allow for potential diagnosis,” Kavita Gandhi, MS, of the patient and health impact group at Pfizer in Collegeville, Pa., and associates said in JAMA Dermatology.

The estimated range of 0.76%-1.11% prevalence represents 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults with vitiligo in the general population, based on responses from 40,888 participants surveyed between Dec. 30, 2019, and March 11, 2020, and further physician evaluation of photos uploaded by 113 respondents, they explained. The investigators used a representative sample of the U.S. population, of people ages 18-85 years.

A prior vitiligo diagnosis was reported by 314 participants, and another 249 screened positive through the survey, for a self-reported overall prevalence of 1.38% in the adult population and a previously undiagnosed prevalence of 0.61%. The physician adjudication brought the overall prevalence down to 0.76% and the undiagnosed prevalence to 0.29%. “These findings suggest that up to 40% of adults with vitiligo in the U.S. may be undiagnosed,” the investigators wrote.

Survey questions covering the laterality of lesions broke the 1.38% overall prevalence down to 0.77% nonsegmental vitiligo (self-reported as bilateral) and 0.61% segmental (unilateral). The 0.76% overall prevalence provided by the three dermatologist reviewers worked out to 0.58% classified as nonsegmental and 0.18% as segmental, Ms. Gandhi and associates said.

“The distinction between segmental and nonsegmental vitiligo is of prime importance [since] patients are usually concerned by the spreading of the disease and its unpredictable course, which is the hallmark of nonsegmental vitiligo,” the researchers noted.

The analysis was the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to identify several trends among the undiagnosed population. The proportion of nonwhite adults was higher in the undiagnosed group (40.2%) than among those with a diagnosis (31.5%), as was Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (21.3% vs. 15.3%). Unilateral presentation was seen in 54.2% of the undiagnosed adults and 37.3% of those with diagnosed vitiligo, they reported.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, which employs several of the investigators. Two of the investigators disclosed multiple conflicts of interest involving other companies.

[email protected]

A new survey-based estimate puts the prevalence of vitiligo somewhere between 0.76% and 1.11% in the United States and suggests that 40% of adults with the autoimmune disorder may be undiagnosed.

“The remarkably high number of participants with undiagnosed vitiligo” indicates a need for “the development and validation of teledermatology apps that allow for potential diagnosis,” Kavita Gandhi, MS, of the patient and health impact group at Pfizer in Collegeville, Pa., and associates said in JAMA Dermatology.

The estimated range of 0.76%-1.11% prevalence represents 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults with vitiligo in the general population, based on responses from 40,888 participants surveyed between Dec. 30, 2019, and March 11, 2020, and further physician evaluation of photos uploaded by 113 respondents, they explained. The investigators used a representative sample of the U.S. population, of people ages 18-85 years.

A prior vitiligo diagnosis was reported by 314 participants, and another 249 screened positive through the survey, for a self-reported overall prevalence of 1.38% in the adult population and a previously undiagnosed prevalence of 0.61%. The physician adjudication brought the overall prevalence down to 0.76% and the undiagnosed prevalence to 0.29%. “These findings suggest that up to 40% of adults with vitiligo in the U.S. may be undiagnosed,” the investigators wrote.

Survey questions covering the laterality of lesions broke the 1.38% overall prevalence down to 0.77% nonsegmental vitiligo (self-reported as bilateral) and 0.61% segmental (unilateral). The 0.76% overall prevalence provided by the three dermatologist reviewers worked out to 0.58% classified as nonsegmental and 0.18% as segmental, Ms. Gandhi and associates said.

“The distinction between segmental and nonsegmental vitiligo is of prime importance [since] patients are usually concerned by the spreading of the disease and its unpredictable course, which is the hallmark of nonsegmental vitiligo,” the researchers noted.

The analysis was the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to identify several trends among the undiagnosed population. The proportion of nonwhite adults was higher in the undiagnosed group (40.2%) than among those with a diagnosis (31.5%), as was Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (21.3% vs. 15.3%). Unilateral presentation was seen in 54.2% of the undiagnosed adults and 37.3% of those with diagnosed vitiligo, they reported.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, which employs several of the investigators. Two of the investigators disclosed multiple conflicts of interest involving other companies.

[email protected]

A new survey-based estimate puts the prevalence of vitiligo somewhere between 0.76% and 1.11% in the United States and suggests that 40% of adults with the autoimmune disorder may be undiagnosed.

“The remarkably high number of participants with undiagnosed vitiligo” indicates a need for “the development and validation of teledermatology apps that allow for potential diagnosis,” Kavita Gandhi, MS, of the patient and health impact group at Pfizer in Collegeville, Pa., and associates said in JAMA Dermatology.

The estimated range of 0.76%-1.11% prevalence represents 1.9 million to 2.8 million adults with vitiligo in the general population, based on responses from 40,888 participants surveyed between Dec. 30, 2019, and March 11, 2020, and further physician evaluation of photos uploaded by 113 respondents, they explained. The investigators used a representative sample of the U.S. population, of people ages 18-85 years.

A prior vitiligo diagnosis was reported by 314 participants, and another 249 screened positive through the survey, for a self-reported overall prevalence of 1.38% in the adult population and a previously undiagnosed prevalence of 0.61%. The physician adjudication brought the overall prevalence down to 0.76% and the undiagnosed prevalence to 0.29%. “These findings suggest that up to 40% of adults with vitiligo in the U.S. may be undiagnosed,” the investigators wrote.

Survey questions covering the laterality of lesions broke the 1.38% overall prevalence down to 0.77% nonsegmental vitiligo (self-reported as bilateral) and 0.61% segmental (unilateral). The 0.76% overall prevalence provided by the three dermatologist reviewers worked out to 0.58% classified as nonsegmental and 0.18% as segmental, Ms. Gandhi and associates said.

“The distinction between segmental and nonsegmental vitiligo is of prime importance [since] patients are usually concerned by the spreading of the disease and its unpredictable course, which is the hallmark of nonsegmental vitiligo,” the researchers noted.

The analysis was the first, to the authors’ knowledge, to identify several trends among the undiagnosed population. The proportion of nonwhite adults was higher in the undiagnosed group (40.2%) than among those with a diagnosis (31.5%), as was Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (21.3% vs. 15.3%). Unilateral presentation was seen in 54.2% of the undiagnosed adults and 37.3% of those with diagnosed vitiligo, they reported.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer, which employs several of the investigators. Two of the investigators disclosed multiple conflicts of interest involving other companies.

[email protected]

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Addition of echocardiogram measurement of biventricular dysfunction improved the accuracy of prognosis among patients with cardiac shock (CS) in the cardiac intensive care unit.

In patients in the cardiac ICU with CS, biventricular dysfunction (BVD), as assessed using transthoracic echocardiography, improves clinical risk stratification when combined with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage.

No improvements in risk stratification was seen with patients with left or right ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD or RVSD) alone, according to an article published in the journal Chest.

Ventricular systolic dysfunction is commonly seen in patients who have suffered cardiac shock, most often on the left side. Although echocardiography is often performed on these patients during diagnosis, previous studies looking at ventricular dysfunction used invasive hemodynamic parameters, which made it challenging to incorporate their findings into general cardiac ICU practice.
 

Pinning down cardiac shock

Although treatment of acute MI and heart failure has improved greatly, particularly with the implementation of percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI. This has reduced the rate of future heart failure, but cardiac shock can occur before or after the procedure, with a 30-day mortality of 30%-40%. This outcome hasn’t improved in the last 20 years.

Efforts to improve cardiac shock outcomes through percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been hindered by the fact that CS patients are heterogeneous, and prognosis may depend on a range of factors.

SCAI was developed as a five-stage classification system for CS to improve communication of patient status, as well as to improve differentiation among patients participation in clinical trials. It does not include measures of ventricular dysfunction.
 

Simple measure boosts prognosis accuracy

The new work adds an additional layer to the SCAI shock stage. “Adding echocardiography allows discrimination between levels of risk for each SCAI stage,” said David Baran, MD, who was asked for comment. Dr. Baran was the lead author on the original SCAI study and is system director of advanced heart failure at Sentara Heart Hospital, as well as a professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, both in Norfolk.

The work also underscores the value of repeated measures of prognosis during a patient’s stay in the ICU. “If a patient is not improving, it may prompt a consideration of whether transfer or consultation with a tertiary center may be of value. Conversely, if a patient doesn’t have high-risk features and is responding to therapy, it is reassuring to have data supporting low mortality with that care plan,” said Dr. Baran.

The study may be biased, since not every patient undergoes an echocardiogram. Still, “the authors make a convincing case that biventricular dysfunction is a powerful negative marker across the spectrum of SCAI stages,” said Dr. Baran.

Echocardiography is simple and generally available, and some are even portable and used with a smartphone. But patient body size interferes with echocardiography, as can the presence of a ventilator or multiple surgical dressings. “The key advantage of echo is that it is completely noninvasive and can be brought to the patient in the ICU, unlike other testing which involves moving the patient to the testing environment,” said Dr. Baran.

The researchers analyzed data from 3,158 patients admitted to the cardiac ICU at the Mayo Clinic Hospital St. Mary’s Campus in Rochester, Minn., 51.8% of whom had acute coronary syndromes. They defined LVSD as a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and RVSD as at least moderate systolic dysfunction determined by semiquantitative measurement. BVD constituted the presence of both LVSD and RVSD. They examined the association of in-hospital mortality with these parameters combined with SCAI stage.
 

BVD a risk factor

Overall in-hospital mortality was 10%. A total of 22.3% of patients had LVSD and 11.8% had RVSD; 16.4% had moderate or greater BVD. There was no association between LVSD or RVSD and in-hospital mortality after adjustment for SCAI stage, but there was a significant association for BVD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.815; P = .0023). When combined with SCAI, BVC led to an improved ability to predict hospital mortality (area under the curve, 0.784 vs. 0.766; P < .001). Adding semiquantitative RVSD and LVSD led to more improvement (AUC, 0.794; P < .01 vs. both).

RVSD was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.421; P = .02), and there was a trend toward greater mortality with LVSD (aOR, 1.336; P = .06). There was little change when SCAI shock stage A patients were excluded (aOR, 1.840; P < .001).

Patients with BVD had greater in-hospital mortality than those without ventricular dysfunction (aOR, 1.815; P = .0023), but other between-group comparisons were not significant.

The researchers performed a classification and regression tree analysis using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and semiquantitative RVSD. It found that RVSD was a better predictor of in-hospital mortality than LVSD, and the best cutoff for LVSD was different among patients with RVSD and patients without RVSD.

Patients with mild or greater RVD and LVEF greater than 24% were considered high risk; those with borderline or low RVSD and LVEF less than 33%, or mild or greater RVSD with LVEF of at least 24%, were considered intermediate risk. Patients with borderline or no RVSD and LVEF of at least 33% were considered low risk. Hospital mortality was 22% in the high-risk group, 12.2% in the intermediate group, and 3.3% in the low-risk group (aOR vs. intermediate, 0.493; P = .0006; aOR vs. high risk, 0.357; P < .0001).

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concomitant rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (RSsNP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a poorer, disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), a Norwegian study is showing.

“Chronic rhinosinusitis has an impact on patients’ HRQoL,” lead author Marte Rystad Øie, Trondheim (Norway) University Hospital, said in an interview.

“We found that RSsNP in COPD was associated with more psychological issues, higher COPD symptom burden, and overall COPD-related HRQoL after adjusting for lung function, so RSsNP does have clinical relevance and [our findings] support previous studies that have suggested that rhinosinusitis should be recognized as a comorbidity in COPD,” she emphasized.

The study was published in the Nov. 1 issue of Respiratory Medicine.
 

Study sample

The study sample consisted of 90 patients with COPD and 93 control subjects, all age 40-80 years. “Generic HRQoL was measured with the Norwegian version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey Standard questionnaire,” the authors wrote, and responses were compared between patients with COPD and controls as well as between subgroups of patients who had COPD both with and without RSsNP.

Disease-specific HRQoL was assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22); the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and responses were again compared between patients who had COPD with and without RSsNP. In the COPD group, “severe” and “very severe” airflow obstruction was present in 56.5% of patients with RSsNP compared with 38.6% of patients without RSsNP, as Ms. Øie reported.

Furthermore, total SNOT-22 along with psychological subscale scores were both significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without RSsNP. Among those with RSsNP, the mean value of the total SNOT-22 score was 36.8 whereas the mean value of the psychological subscale score was 22.6. Comparable mean values among patients who had COPD without RSsNP were 9.5 and 6.5, respectively (P < .05).

Total scores on the SGRQ were again significantly greater in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 43.3 compared with a mean of 34 in those without RSsNP, investigators observe. Similarly, scores for the symptom and activity domains again on the SGRQ were significantly greater for patients who had COPD with RSsNP than those without nasal polyps. As for the total CAT score, once again it was significantly higher in patients who had COPD with RSsNP at a mean of 18.8 compared with a mean of 13.5 in those without RSsNP (P < .05).

Indeed, patients with RSsNP were four times more likely to have CAT scores indicating the condition was having a high or very high impact on their HRQoL compared with patients without RSsNP (P < .001). As the authors pointed out, having a high impact on HRQoL translates into patients having to stop their desired activities and having no good days in the week.

“This suggests that having RSsNP substantially adds to the activity limitation experienced by patients with COPD,” they emphasized. The authors also found that RSsNP was significantly associated with poorer physical functioning after adjusting for COPD as reflected by SF-36v2 findings, again suggesting that patients who had COPD with concomitant RSsNP have an additional limitation in activity and a heavier symptom burden.

As Ms. Øie explained, rhinosinusitis has two clinical phenotypes: that with nasal polyps and that without nasal polyps, the latter being twice as prevalent. In fact, rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is associated with asthma, as she pointed out. Given, however, that rhinosinusitis without polyps is amenable to treatment with daily use of nasal steroids, it is possible to reduce the burden of symptoms and psychological stress associated with RSsNP in COPD.

Limitations of the study include the fact that investigators did not assess patients for the presence of any comorbidities that could contribute to poorer HRQoL in this patient population.

The study was funded by Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a randomized controlled trial of close to 1,000 Ugandan children and youth with latent rheumatic heart disease (RHD), those who received monthly injections of penicillin G benzathine for 2 years had less disease progression than those who did not.

RHD, a valvular heart disease caused by rheumatic fever that develops after untreated Streptococcus pyogenes infection, is the most common acquired cardiovascular disease among children and young adults.

“It is clear that secondary antibiotic prophylaxis can improve outcomes for children with echo-detected rheumatic RHD,” co–lead author of the study, Andrea Z. Beaton, MD, said in an interview.

“There is huge potential here, but we are not quite ready to advocate for this strategy as a broad public health approach,” said Dr. Beaton, a pediatric cardiologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“We need to understand more the practical translation of this strategy to a low-resourced public health system at scale, improve [penicillin G benzathine] supply, and improve community and health care worker knowledge of this disease.”

Dr. Beaton presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, and the study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Nov. 13, 2021.

The GOAL trial – or the Gwoko Adunu pa Lutino trial, meaning “protect the heart of a child” – screened 102,200 children and adolescents aged 5-17. Of these kids and teenagers, 926 (0.9%) were diagnosed with latent RHD based on a confirmatory electrocardiogram.

“For now, I would say, if you are screening, then kids found to have latent RHD should be put on prophylaxis,” Dr. Beaton said.

“I think this is also a powerful call for more research [severely lacking in RHD],” to improve risk stratification, determine how to implement screening and prophylaxis programs, and develop new and better approaches for RHD prevention and care.

“This essential trial partially addresses the clinical equipoise that has developed regarding penicillin administration in latent RHD,” said Gabriele Rossi, MD, MPH, who was not involved with this research.

It showed that, out of the final 818 participants included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a total of 3 (0.8%) in the prophylaxis group had echocardiographic progression at 2 years, compared with 33 participants (8.2%) in the control group (risk difference, −7.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to −4.7; P < .001).

“This is a significant difference,” Dr. Rossi, from Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), Brussels, said in an interview, noting that, however, it is not known what happens after 2 years.

The authors estimated that 13 children or adolescents with latent rheumatic heart disease would need to be treated to prevent disease progression in one person at 2 years, which is “acceptable,” he continued.

However, “screening, diagnosis, clinical follow-up, treatment, and program management [would] require substantial strengthening of health systems and the workforce, which is still far from being realizable in many African and low-income country settings,” Dr. Rossi noted.

Related study in Italy

Previously, Dr. Rossi and colleagues conducted a trial, published in 2019, that showed it was feasible to screen for asymptomatic RHD among refugee/migrant children and youths in Rome.

From February 2016 to January 2018, they screened more than 650 refugee/migrant children and adolescents who were younger than 18. They came largely from Egypt (65%) but also from 22 other countries and were often unaccompanied or with just one parent.

The number needed to screen was 5 to identify a child/youth with borderline RHD and around 40 to identify a child/youth with definite RHD.

Dr. Rossi noted that local resurgences of RHD have also been also documented in high-income countries such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, often among disadvantaged indigenous people, as described in a 2018 Letter to the Editor in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Beaton noted that a review of 10-year data (2008-2018) from 22 U.S. pediatric institutions showed that in the United States the prevalence of RHD “is higher in immigrant children from RHD endemic areas, but because of total numbers, more RHD cases than not are domestic.” Children living in more deprived communities are at risk for more severe disease, and the burden in U.S. territories is also quite high.
 

Screening and secondary prophylaxis

The aim of the current GOAL study was to evaluate if screening and treatment with penicillin G benzathine could detect and prevent progression of latent rheumatic heart disease in 5- to 17-year-olds living in Gulu, Uganda. The trial was conducted from July 2018 to October 2020.

“School education and community sensitization was done prior to the trial,” through radio shows or school-based education, Dr. Beaton explained. About 99% of the children/adolescents/families agreed to be screened.

The group has been conducting echo screening research in Uganda for 10 years, she noted. They have developed peer group and case manager strategies to aid participant retention, as they describe in an article about the study protocol.

The screening echocardiograms were interpreted by about 30 providers and four cardiologists reviewed confirmatory echocardiograms.

Two participants in the prophylaxis group had serious adverse events that were attributable to receipt of prophylaxis, including one episode of a mild anaphylactic reaction (representing <0.1% of all administered doses of prophylaxis).

Once children and adolescents have moderate/severe RHD, there is not much that can be done in lower- and middle-income countries, where surgery for this is uncommon, Dr. Beaton explained. Around 30% of children and adolescents with this condition who come to clinical attention in Uganda die within 9 months.
 

Further research

Dr. Beaton and colleagues have just started a trial to investigate the burden of RHD among Native American youth, which has not been studied since the 1970s.

They also have an ongoing study looking at the efficacy of a pragmatic, community-based sore throat program to prevent RHD.

“Unfortunately, this strategy has not worked well in low-to-middle income countries, for a variety of reasons so far,” Dr. Beaton noted, and the cost-effectiveness of this preventive strategy is questionable.

The trial was supported by the Thrasher Research Fund, Gift of Life International, Children’s National Hospital Foundation (Zachary Blumenfeld Fund and Race for Every Child [Team Jocelyn]), the Elias-Ginsburg Family, Wiley Rein, Philips Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Heart Healers International, the Karp Family Foundation, Huron Philanthropies, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Heart Institute Research Core. Dr. Beaton and Dr. Rossi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a randomized controlled trial of close to 1,000 Ugandan children and youth with latent rheumatic heart disease (RHD), those who received monthly injections of penicillin G benzathine for 2 years had less disease progression than those who did not.

RHD, a valvular heart disease caused by rheumatic fever that develops after untreated Streptococcus pyogenes infection, is the most common acquired cardiovascular disease among children and young adults.

“It is clear that secondary antibiotic prophylaxis can improve outcomes for children with echo-detected rheumatic RHD,” co–lead author of the study, Andrea Z. Beaton, MD, said in an interview.

“There is huge potential here, but we are not quite ready to advocate for this strategy as a broad public health approach,” said Dr. Beaton, a pediatric cardiologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“We need to understand more the practical translation of this strategy to a low-resourced public health system at scale, improve [penicillin G benzathine] supply, and improve community and health care worker knowledge of this disease.”

Dr. Beaton presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, and the study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Nov. 13, 2021.

The GOAL trial – or the Gwoko Adunu pa Lutino trial, meaning “protect the heart of a child” – screened 102,200 children and adolescents aged 5-17. Of these kids and teenagers, 926 (0.9%) were diagnosed with latent RHD based on a confirmatory electrocardiogram.

“For now, I would say, if you are screening, then kids found to have latent RHD should be put on prophylaxis,” Dr. Beaton said.

“I think this is also a powerful call for more research [severely lacking in RHD],” to improve risk stratification, determine how to implement screening and prophylaxis programs, and develop new and better approaches for RHD prevention and care.

“This essential trial partially addresses the clinical equipoise that has developed regarding penicillin administration in latent RHD,” said Gabriele Rossi, MD, MPH, who was not involved with this research.

It showed that, out of the final 818 participants included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a total of 3 (0.8%) in the prophylaxis group had echocardiographic progression at 2 years, compared with 33 participants (8.2%) in the control group (risk difference, −7.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to −4.7; P < .001).

“This is a significant difference,” Dr. Rossi, from Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), Brussels, said in an interview, noting that, however, it is not known what happens after 2 years.

The authors estimated that 13 children or adolescents with latent rheumatic heart disease would need to be treated to prevent disease progression in one person at 2 years, which is “acceptable,” he continued.

However, “screening, diagnosis, clinical follow-up, treatment, and program management [would] require substantial strengthening of health systems and the workforce, which is still far from being realizable in many African and low-income country settings,” Dr. Rossi noted.

Related study in Italy

Previously, Dr. Rossi and colleagues conducted a trial, published in 2019, that showed it was feasible to screen for asymptomatic RHD among refugee/migrant children and youths in Rome.

From February 2016 to January 2018, they screened more than 650 refugee/migrant children and adolescents who were younger than 18. They came largely from Egypt (65%) but also from 22 other countries and were often unaccompanied or with just one parent.

The number needed to screen was 5 to identify a child/youth with borderline RHD and around 40 to identify a child/youth with definite RHD.

Dr. Rossi noted that local resurgences of RHD have also been also documented in high-income countries such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, often among disadvantaged indigenous people, as described in a 2018 Letter to the Editor in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Beaton noted that a review of 10-year data (2008-2018) from 22 U.S. pediatric institutions showed that in the United States the prevalence of RHD “is higher in immigrant children from RHD endemic areas, but because of total numbers, more RHD cases than not are domestic.” Children living in more deprived communities are at risk for more severe disease, and the burden in U.S. territories is also quite high.
 

Screening and secondary prophylaxis

The aim of the current GOAL study was to evaluate if screening and treatment with penicillin G benzathine could detect and prevent progression of latent rheumatic heart disease in 5- to 17-year-olds living in Gulu, Uganda. The trial was conducted from July 2018 to October 2020.

“School education and community sensitization was done prior to the trial,” through radio shows or school-based education, Dr. Beaton explained. About 99% of the children/adolescents/families agreed to be screened.

The group has been conducting echo screening research in Uganda for 10 years, she noted. They have developed peer group and case manager strategies to aid participant retention, as they describe in an article about the study protocol.

The screening echocardiograms were interpreted by about 30 providers and four cardiologists reviewed confirmatory echocardiograms.

Two participants in the prophylaxis group had serious adverse events that were attributable to receipt of prophylaxis, including one episode of a mild anaphylactic reaction (representing <0.1% of all administered doses of prophylaxis).

Once children and adolescents have moderate/severe RHD, there is not much that can be done in lower- and middle-income countries, where surgery for this is uncommon, Dr. Beaton explained. Around 30% of children and adolescents with this condition who come to clinical attention in Uganda die within 9 months.
 

Further research

Dr. Beaton and colleagues have just started a trial to investigate the burden of RHD among Native American youth, which has not been studied since the 1970s.

They also have an ongoing study looking at the efficacy of a pragmatic, community-based sore throat program to prevent RHD.

“Unfortunately, this strategy has not worked well in low-to-middle income countries, for a variety of reasons so far,” Dr. Beaton noted, and the cost-effectiveness of this preventive strategy is questionable.

The trial was supported by the Thrasher Research Fund, Gift of Life International, Children’s National Hospital Foundation (Zachary Blumenfeld Fund and Race for Every Child [Team Jocelyn]), the Elias-Ginsburg Family, Wiley Rein, Philips Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Heart Healers International, the Karp Family Foundation, Huron Philanthropies, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Heart Institute Research Core. Dr. Beaton and Dr. Rossi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a randomized controlled trial of close to 1,000 Ugandan children and youth with latent rheumatic heart disease (RHD), those who received monthly injections of penicillin G benzathine for 2 years had less disease progression than those who did not.

RHD, a valvular heart disease caused by rheumatic fever that develops after untreated Streptococcus pyogenes infection, is the most common acquired cardiovascular disease among children and young adults.

“It is clear that secondary antibiotic prophylaxis can improve outcomes for children with echo-detected rheumatic RHD,” co–lead author of the study, Andrea Z. Beaton, MD, said in an interview.

“There is huge potential here, but we are not quite ready to advocate for this strategy as a broad public health approach,” said Dr. Beaton, a pediatric cardiologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“We need to understand more the practical translation of this strategy to a low-resourced public health system at scale, improve [penicillin G benzathine] supply, and improve community and health care worker knowledge of this disease.”

Dr. Beaton presented the findings at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, and the study was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Nov. 13, 2021.

The GOAL trial – or the Gwoko Adunu pa Lutino trial, meaning “protect the heart of a child” – screened 102,200 children and adolescents aged 5-17. Of these kids and teenagers, 926 (0.9%) were diagnosed with latent RHD based on a confirmatory electrocardiogram.

“For now, I would say, if you are screening, then kids found to have latent RHD should be put on prophylaxis,” Dr. Beaton said.

“I think this is also a powerful call for more research [severely lacking in RHD],” to improve risk stratification, determine how to implement screening and prophylaxis programs, and develop new and better approaches for RHD prevention and care.

“This essential trial partially addresses the clinical equipoise that has developed regarding penicillin administration in latent RHD,” said Gabriele Rossi, MD, MPH, who was not involved with this research.

It showed that, out of the final 818 participants included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a total of 3 (0.8%) in the prophylaxis group had echocardiographic progression at 2 years, compared with 33 participants (8.2%) in the control group (risk difference, −7.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −10.2 to −4.7; P < .001).

“This is a significant difference,” Dr. Rossi, from Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), Brussels, said in an interview, noting that, however, it is not known what happens after 2 years.

The authors estimated that 13 children or adolescents with latent rheumatic heart disease would need to be treated to prevent disease progression in one person at 2 years, which is “acceptable,” he continued.

However, “screening, diagnosis, clinical follow-up, treatment, and program management [would] require substantial strengthening of health systems and the workforce, which is still far from being realizable in many African and low-income country settings,” Dr. Rossi noted.

Related study in Italy

Previously, Dr. Rossi and colleagues conducted a trial, published in 2019, that showed it was feasible to screen for asymptomatic RHD among refugee/migrant children and youths in Rome.

From February 2016 to January 2018, they screened more than 650 refugee/migrant children and adolescents who were younger than 18. They came largely from Egypt (65%) but also from 22 other countries and were often unaccompanied or with just one parent.

The number needed to screen was 5 to identify a child/youth with borderline RHD and around 40 to identify a child/youth with definite RHD.

Dr. Rossi noted that local resurgences of RHD have also been also documented in high-income countries such as Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, often among disadvantaged indigenous people, as described in a 2018 Letter to the Editor in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Beaton noted that a review of 10-year data (2008-2018) from 22 U.S. pediatric institutions showed that in the United States the prevalence of RHD “is higher in immigrant children from RHD endemic areas, but because of total numbers, more RHD cases than not are domestic.” Children living in more deprived communities are at risk for more severe disease, and the burden in U.S. territories is also quite high.
 

Screening and secondary prophylaxis

The aim of the current GOAL study was to evaluate if screening and treatment with penicillin G benzathine could detect and prevent progression of latent rheumatic heart disease in 5- to 17-year-olds living in Gulu, Uganda. The trial was conducted from July 2018 to October 2020.

“School education and community sensitization was done prior to the trial,” through radio shows or school-based education, Dr. Beaton explained. About 99% of the children/adolescents/families agreed to be screened.

The group has been conducting echo screening research in Uganda for 10 years, she noted. They have developed peer group and case manager strategies to aid participant retention, as they describe in an article about the study protocol.

The screening echocardiograms were interpreted by about 30 providers and four cardiologists reviewed confirmatory echocardiograms.

Two participants in the prophylaxis group had serious adverse events that were attributable to receipt of prophylaxis, including one episode of a mild anaphylactic reaction (representing <0.1% of all administered doses of prophylaxis).

Once children and adolescents have moderate/severe RHD, there is not much that can be done in lower- and middle-income countries, where surgery for this is uncommon, Dr. Beaton explained. Around 30% of children and adolescents with this condition who come to clinical attention in Uganda die within 9 months.
 

Further research

Dr. Beaton and colleagues have just started a trial to investigate the burden of RHD among Native American youth, which has not been studied since the 1970s.

They also have an ongoing study looking at the efficacy of a pragmatic, community-based sore throat program to prevent RHD.

“Unfortunately, this strategy has not worked well in low-to-middle income countries, for a variety of reasons so far,” Dr. Beaton noted, and the cost-effectiveness of this preventive strategy is questionable.

The trial was supported by the Thrasher Research Fund, Gift of Life International, Children’s National Hospital Foundation (Zachary Blumenfeld Fund and Race for Every Child [Team Jocelyn]), the Elias-Ginsburg Family, Wiley Rein, Philips Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Heart Healers International, the Karp Family Foundation, Huron Philanthropies, and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Heart Institute Research Core. Dr. Beaton and Dr. Rossi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.