Women's Health

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

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

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

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

Breast cancer screening recommendations have evolved over the past decade. The new U.S. Preventive Services Take Force recommendations detailing screening for patients at increased risk of BRCA1/2 mutations have added another dimension to screening for breast and associated cancers for primary care physicians. BRCA1/2 genes are tumor-suppressor genes. Mutations in these genes place women at an increased risk for developing breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. Detection of BRCA1/2 mutations through genetic screening can provide patients with more information about their cancer risk and can lead to discussion of prophylactic therapies. This includes increased screening frequency, medical therapy, and surgical interventions.

New USPSTF recommendations address who is at an increased risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. They recommend using screening tools focusing on family history that primary care physicians can utilize to determine who should be referred for genetic counseling to discuss the risks and benefits of genetic screening. The following are the task force’s two primary recommendations:


The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation)


The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation)


Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer and cancer death for women in the United States. Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in cancer deaths for women in the U.S. By age 70, women with BRCA1/2 mutations have a 45%-65% cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Mutations in BRCA1, specifically, are associated with a 39% lifetime risk for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. In contrast, mutations in BRCA2 are associated with a 10%-17% lifetime risk.

The USPSTF also underscores the increased prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Three out of seven familial risk assessment tools inquire about Jewish ancestry. This is because the Ashkenazi Jewish population have a higher prevalence of three founder mutations in the BRCA1/2 gene. A member of this population has a 1 in 40 chance of carrying one of these three mutations, whereas the general population has a 1 in 300 chance.

The USPSTF recommends a multistep process of screening. The first step is taking a family history of cancer. For women who have a family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or a personal history of these cancers, a brief familial risk assessment tool should be used to determine the need for referral for in-depth genetic counseling to determine the need for genetic testing.

It is important to recognize that the validated tools recommended by the USPSTF are specific for genetic risk assessment. General breast cancer risk assessment tools, including the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which is based on the Gail model, are not recommended.

The sensitivity of the tools recommended by the USPSTF range between 77% and 100%. A number of tools are given as an option with no one tool being better than the other. Perhaps the easiest to implement of the validated tools recommended is the Pedigree Assessment Tool. For this tool, points are assigned for every family member with breast or ovarian cancer as indicated in the table below.

The bottom line

USPSTF recommended that primary care physicians should use familial risk assessment tools to screen women for BRCA1/2 mutations. This includes women with a personal and/or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or women with a family history of BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Patients who test positive through one of the suggested screening tools should be referred for genetic counseling. This could lead to genetic testing and subsequent prophylactic therapies and/or increased screenings if the patient so desires. It is of importance to note the USPSTF recommends against routine screening of BRCA1/2 gene mutations for women who do not meet the above requirements.

Reference

USPSTF Recommendation: Assessment, counseling, and testing for BRCA-related cancer. JAMA. 2019;322(7):652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987.
 

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

PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – When the male partner used marijuana one or more times per week before conception, couples had a higher rate of spontaneous abortion, compared with infrequent use or no use of marijuana by the male partner, Alyssa F. Harlow, MPH, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

The male partner’s use of marijuana “one or more times per week in the past 2 months during the preconception period in our study was associated with an increased risk of spontaneous abortion,” said Ms. Harlow, a PhD candidate at Boston University. “The association attenuated for later pregnancy losses, and persisted for those with shorter [pregnancy] attempt time at [study] entry.”

Ms. Harlow and colleagues prospectively collected data from 1,535 couples in the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) study, a preconception cohort study examining risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes. PRESTO enrolled women aged 21-45 years and their male partners aged 21 years or older who were attempting to conceive without the use of fertility treatment.

The researchers administered a screening and baseline questionnaire to the women, who then included their male partners in the study. The male partners completed their own baseline questionnaire that asked about demographics, medical history, and lifestyle or behavioral factors including marijuana use. The questions centering around marijuana use asked whether the partner had used marijuana within the past 2 months, and the frequency of marijuana use during that period.

Women in PRESTO were followed every 8 weeks until a pregnancy occurred, or up to 12 months if no pregnancy occurred. If they became pregnant, the women were asked additional questions at less than 12 weeks’ gestation and then again at 32 weeks’ gestation, including questions about any miscarriages, and how long a pregnancy lasted if a miscarriage did occur.

At baseline, 1,267 couples (83%) reported no marijuana use by male partners, 140 couples (9%) reported use less than 1 time per week, and 128 couples (8%) reported marijuana use at least 1 time per week. Men at baseline were similar in age and body mass index among groups, but men who used marijuana were more likely to be cigarette smokers (24% vs. 4%), were more likely to have partners who were cigarette smokers (11% vs. 2%), and were more likely to have partners who use marijuana (43% vs. 3%), compared with couples where the male partners did not use marijuana. Male partners who used marijuana also were less likely to be taking a daily multivitamin (25% vs. 37%), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety (14% vs. 7%) or depression (20% vs. 9%) compared with male partners who did not use marijuana.

Overall, 269 spontaneous abortions (17.5%) occurred during the study period, and couples where male partners used marijuana one or more times per week had approximately twice the rate of spontaneous abortions, compared with no marijuana use (hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval).

Couples in which men who used marijuana less than 1 time per week had a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, but this did not reach statistical significance.

When the results were adjusted for female nonusers of marijuana, the results were “essentially identical,” said Ms. Harlow.

Couples who were trying to conceive for three or fewer cycles at baseline (1,045 couples) had a lower rate of spontaneous abortion than that of couples trying for three or more cycles (490 couples). When the results were stratified by gestational age at loss, the results persisted for couples with a pregnancy loss at less than 8 weeks (1,533 couples), but the effect of marijuana use was reduced for couples with a loss at 8 weeks or more (1,113 couples).

Ms. Harlow noted several limitations to the study, including lack of data on time-varying marijuana use, potential selection bias, and residual confounding. There also is likely misclassification of exposure among some participants because marijuana use was self-reported, she added.

Ms. Harlow reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Harlow AF et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-4.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with obesity who underwent a lifestyle program targeting healthy eating and physical activity were significantly more likely to achieve pregnancy or become spontaneously pregnant, Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, MSc, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

World Obesity Federation

However, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in the study appeared to benefit more than did women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program, said Dr. Baillargeon, from the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

“Our lifestyle program targeting women with obesity seeking fertility treatments increased the chances of conceiving, mainly spontaneously. Women with PCOS seemed to benefit more from such a program,” said Dr. Baillargeon.

“These benefits occur along with small changes in weight, but important improvements in lifestyle, so lifestyle seems to be more important than weight change here,” he added.

The researchers randomized 130 women to receive the Fit-For-Fertility lifestyle program or usual care for infertility. The lifestyle program consisted of a low-intensity weekly intervention for 6 weeks in which patients met individually with a kinesiologist and nutritionist every week and also attended group sessions each week. Women in the intervention did not receive fertility treatment for the first 6 months while on the lifestyle program, and if they did not conceive during that time, they continued the program in combination with fertility treatments.

Patients were included if they were aged 18-40 years and had either infertility and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater or PCOS and a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater. Researchers excluded women planning to undergo bariatric surgery, women who were already undergoing another lifestyle intervention, and women with severe infertility or who had a male partner with severe infertility for whom in vitro fertilization was their only option for conceiving. Researchers collected data from patients at baseline and every 6 months up to 18 months, with additional visits for pregnant women scheduled at the beginning of pregnancy and at 26 weeks’ gestation. They collected baseline data on age, BMI, waist circumference, fat mass percentage, daily energy expenditure, and food frequency using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).

Overall, 46 women in the intervention group and 52 women in the control group had a research visit at 6 months or pregnancy research visit at less than 6 months; of these, 33 women in the intervention group (65%) and 35 women in the control group (61%) had PCOS. At baseline, both PCOS and non-PCOS groups were similar; however, women in the PCOS intervention group had a lower BMI than did women without PCOS in the intervention group (37 kg/m² vs. 41 kg/m²; P less than .05), while women without PCOS in the intervention group had a higher fat mass percentage than did women with PCOS in the intervention group (46% vs. 49%; P less than .05).

With regard to weight loss, there was a 2.4% reduction in weight among all patients in the intervention group, compared with the control group (P = .003), with a 2.7% reduction in weight for the PCOS group (P = .015) and a 1.8% reduction in the non-PCOS group (P = .139). However, there were no significant differences between PCOS status and the lifestyle intervention, said Dr. Baillargeon.

At 6 months, the quality of women’s diets in the combined PCOS and non-PCOS group that participated in the lifestyle program showed significant improvement, compared with control groups (HEI, 18% vs. 5%; P less than .001). The PCOS group on its own showed significant improvement with the intervention (20% vs. 4%; P less than .001), whereas women without PCOS showed a nonsignificant improvement with the intervention (14% vs. 6%; P = .055). Daily energy expenditure improved in all groups that received the intervention, compared with the control groups, but there were no significant between-group differences in energy expenditure.

When analyzing fertility outcomes at 18 months, the pregnancy rate for all patients who received lifestyle interventions was 61%, compared with 39% in the control group (P = .02; number needed to treat, 4.5). In women with PCOS, those who underwent the lifestyle intervention had a pregnancy rate of 58%, compared with 34% in the control group (P = .05; NNT, 4.3); although women without PCOS who participated in the lifestyle program had an improved pregnancy rate over women in the control group, the results were not significant (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7).

The researchers also looked at the spontaneous pregnancy rate and found women who received the intervention had nearly three times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with women in the control group (33% vs. 12%; P = .01), while women with PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly five times the rate of spontaneous pregnancy, compared with the control group (27% vs. 6%; P = .02). Women without PCOS in the lifestyle program had nearly twice the increased likelihood of spontaneous pregnancy, but the results were not significant (44% vs. 23%; P = .15).

Women with PCOS in the lifestyle program also had a higher live birth rate, compared with women in the control group (55% vs. 31%; P = .05; NNT, 4.3). Although women without PCOS in the lifestyle program (67% vs. 46%; P = .18; NNT, 4.7) and women in the study overall experienced higher live birth rates (51% vs. 37%; P = .14; NNT, 7.0), compared with the control group, these results were not significant, said Dr. Baillargeon.

“Such lifestyle interventions in women with obesity could significantly lower costs of fertility treatments, which is important,” concluded Dr. Baillargeon.

The Fit-For-Fertility program was funded by an unrestricted grant from Ferring.

SOURCE: Baillargeon J-P, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-95.

The novel drug bremelanotide shows promise in acquired female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, according to the results of two randomized, controlled trials and a 52-week open-label extension study published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Bremelanotide, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication in June 2019, is an analog of the endogenous neuropeptide alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

Two separate, identically designed phase 3 studies (RECONNECT) were performed by Sheryl Kingsburg, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, and associates. Combined, 1,267 premenopausal women in monogamous relationships with acquired hypoactive sexual desire disorder were randomized to bremelanotide or placebo. Women in the treatment arm had significant improvement in female sexual function index–desire domain (FSFI-D) scores from baseline to week 24 (integrated studies: 0.35; P less than .001; effect size, 0.39), compared with placebo. They also experienced significant improvement in the FSFI-desire/arousal/orgasm (FSFI-DAO) domain (integrated studies: –0.33; P less than .001; effect size, 0.27).

The most common adverse events were nausea (integrated: 40% versus 1% in placebo), flushing (20% versus 0.3%), and headache (11% versus 2%). Overall, 77% in the treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with 58% in the placebo group.

The open-label follow-up study was led by James Simon, MD, of George Washington University and IntimMedicine Specialists, Washington. Of the 684 participants who opted to enter the extension study, 40% completed it. In those who received bremelanotide during the randomized trial, the change in FSFI-D scores from baseline to the end of the open-label study ranged from 1.25 to 1.30, while the change in FSFI-DAO ranged from –1.4 to –1.7. In patients originally on placebo, the changes were 0.70-0.77 and –0.9, respectively.

Both groups surpassed the minimally clinically important difference for the FSFI-D score, which is considered to be 0.6.

“Patients switching from placebo experienced a higher incidence of adverse events than those continuing on bremelanotide during the open-label extension (79% versus 63%, respectively),” Dr. Simon and associates said.

The treatment is subcutaneous and can be self-administered up to about 45 minutes before a sexual event, no more than once during a 24-hour period, and no more than 8 doses per month, according to an FDA press release. The drug is contraindicated for women with cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled hypertension due to observations of transiently, slightly increased blood pressure.

The trials were funded by Palatin Technologies and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. The authors and coauthors have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Carson reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003500; Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003514.

The novel drug bremelanotide shows promise in acquired female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, according to the results of two randomized, controlled trials and a 52-week open-label extension study published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Bremelanotide, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication in June 2019, is an analog of the endogenous neuropeptide alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

Two separate, identically designed phase 3 studies (RECONNECT) were performed by Sheryl Kingsburg, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, and associates. Combined, 1,267 premenopausal women in monogamous relationships with acquired hypoactive sexual desire disorder were randomized to bremelanotide or placebo. Women in the treatment arm had significant improvement in female sexual function index–desire domain (FSFI-D) scores from baseline to week 24 (integrated studies: 0.35; P less than .001; effect size, 0.39), compared with placebo. They also experienced significant improvement in the FSFI-desire/arousal/orgasm (FSFI-DAO) domain (integrated studies: –0.33; P less than .001; effect size, 0.27).

The most common adverse events were nausea (integrated: 40% versus 1% in placebo), flushing (20% versus 0.3%), and headache (11% versus 2%). Overall, 77% in the treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with 58% in the placebo group.

The open-label follow-up study was led by James Simon, MD, of George Washington University and IntimMedicine Specialists, Washington. Of the 684 participants who opted to enter the extension study, 40% completed it. In those who received bremelanotide during the randomized trial, the change in FSFI-D scores from baseline to the end of the open-label study ranged from 1.25 to 1.30, while the change in FSFI-DAO ranged from –1.4 to –1.7. In patients originally on placebo, the changes were 0.70-0.77 and –0.9, respectively.

Both groups surpassed the minimally clinically important difference for the FSFI-D score, which is considered to be 0.6.

“Patients switching from placebo experienced a higher incidence of adverse events than those continuing on bremelanotide during the open-label extension (79% versus 63%, respectively),” Dr. Simon and associates said.

The treatment is subcutaneous and can be self-administered up to about 45 minutes before a sexual event, no more than once during a 24-hour period, and no more than 8 doses per month, according to an FDA press release. The drug is contraindicated for women with cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled hypertension due to observations of transiently, slightly increased blood pressure.

The trials were funded by Palatin Technologies and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. The authors and coauthors have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Carson reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003500; Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003514.

The novel drug bremelanotide shows promise in acquired female hypoactive sexual desire disorder, according to the results of two randomized, controlled trials and a 52-week open-label extension study published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Bremelanotide, which received Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication in June 2019, is an analog of the endogenous neuropeptide alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone.

Two separate, identically designed phase 3 studies (RECONNECT) were performed by Sheryl Kingsburg, MD, of the Cleveland Medical Center, and associates. Combined, 1,267 premenopausal women in monogamous relationships with acquired hypoactive sexual desire disorder were randomized to bremelanotide or placebo. Women in the treatment arm had significant improvement in female sexual function index–desire domain (FSFI-D) scores from baseline to week 24 (integrated studies: 0.35; P less than .001; effect size, 0.39), compared with placebo. They also experienced significant improvement in the FSFI-desire/arousal/orgasm (FSFI-DAO) domain (integrated studies: –0.33; P less than .001; effect size, 0.27).

The most common adverse events were nausea (integrated: 40% versus 1% in placebo), flushing (20% versus 0.3%), and headache (11% versus 2%). Overall, 77% in the treatment group reported a treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with 58% in the placebo group.

The open-label follow-up study was led by James Simon, MD, of George Washington University and IntimMedicine Specialists, Washington. Of the 684 participants who opted to enter the extension study, 40% completed it. In those who received bremelanotide during the randomized trial, the change in FSFI-D scores from baseline to the end of the open-label study ranged from 1.25 to 1.30, while the change in FSFI-DAO ranged from –1.4 to –1.7. In patients originally on placebo, the changes were 0.70-0.77 and –0.9, respectively.

Both groups surpassed the minimally clinically important difference for the FSFI-D score, which is considered to be 0.6.

“Patients switching from placebo experienced a higher incidence of adverse events than those continuing on bremelanotide during the open-label extension (79% versus 63%, respectively),” Dr. Simon and associates said.

The treatment is subcutaneous and can be self-administered up to about 45 minutes before a sexual event, no more than once during a 24-hour period, and no more than 8 doses per month, according to an FDA press release. The drug is contraindicated for women with cardiovascular disease or uncontrolled hypertension due to observations of transiently, slightly increased blood pressure.

The trials were funded by Palatin Technologies and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. The authors and coauthors have extensive financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Carson reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003500; Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003514.

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Breast implants sold in the United States may soon require a boxed warning in their label, along with other label changes proposed by the Food and Drug Administration aimed at better informing prospective patients and clinicians of the potential risks from breast implants.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Other elements of the proposed labeling changes include creation of a patient-decision checklist, new recommendations for follow-up imaging to monitor for implant rupture, inclusion of detailed and understandable information about materials in the device, and provision of a device card to each patient with details on the specific implant they received.

These labeling changes all stemmed from a breast implant hearing held by the agency’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel in March 2019, according to the draft guidance document officially released by the FDA on Oct. 24.

The proposed labeling changes were generally welcomed by patient advocates and by clinicians as a reasonable response to the concerns discussed at the March hearing. In an earlier move to address issues brought up at the hearing, the FDA in July arranged for a recall for certain Allergan models of textured breast implants because of their link with the development of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

The boxed warning proposed by the FDA would highlight four specific facts that patients, physicians, and surgeons should know about breast implants: They are not considered lifetime devices, the chance of developing complications from implants increases over time, some complications require additional surgery, and placement of breast implants has been associated with development of BIA-ALCL and may also be associated with certain systemic symptoms.

The FDA also proposed four other notable labeling changes:

• Creation of a patient-decision checklist to better systematize the informed consent process and make sure that certain aspects of breast implant placement are clearly brought to patients’ attention. The FDA proposed that patients sign their checklist attesting to having read and understood the information and that patients receive a take-home copy for their future reference. Proposed elements of the checklist include situations to not use breast implants; considerations for successful implant recipients; the risks of breast implant surgery; the importance of appropriate physician education, training, and experience; the risk for developing BIA-ALCL or systemic symptoms; and discussion of options other than breast implants.
• A new scheme for systematically and serially using imaging to screen for implant rupture that designates for the first time that ultrasound is an acceptable alternative to MRI and relies on a schedule by which either method initially screens the implant 5-6 years post operatively and then every 2 years thereafter.
• Detailed and understandable information about each material component of the implant with further information on possible adverse health effects of these compounds.
• A device card that patients should receive after their surgery with the implant’s name, serial number, and other identifiers; the boxed warning information; and a web link for accessing more up-to-date information.

The patient group Breast Implant Victim Advocacy praised the draft guidance. “The March Advisory Committee meeting seems to have prompted a shift by the FDA, surgeons, and industry,” said Jamee Cook, cofounder of the group. “We are definitely seeing a change in patient engagement. The FDA has been cooperating with patients and listening to our concerns. We still have a long way to go in raising public awareness of breast implant issues, but progress over the past 1-2 years has been amazing.”

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research in Washington, gave the draft guidance a mixed review. “The FDA’s draft includes the types of information that we had proposed to the FDA in recent months in our work with patient advocates and plastic surgeons,” she said. “However, it is not as informative as it should be in describing well-designed studies indicating a risk of systemic illnesses. Patients deserve to make better-informed decisions in the future than most women considering breast implants have been able to make” in the past.

Patricia McGuire, MD, a St. Louis plastic surgeon who specializes in breast surgery and has studied breast implant illness, declared the guidance to be “reasonable.”

“I think the changes address the concerns expressed by patients during the [March] hearing; I agree with everything the FDA proposed in the guidance document,” Dr. McGuire said. “The boxed warning is reasonable and needs to be part of the informed consent process. I also agree with the changes in screening implants postoperatively. Most patients do not get MRI examinations. High-resolution ultrasound is more convenient and cost effective.”

The boxed warning was rated as “reasonably strong” and “the most serious step the FDA can take short of taking a device off the market,” but in the case of breast implants, a wider recall of textured implants than what the FDA arranged last July would be even more appropriate, commented Sidney M. Wolfe, MD, founder and senior adviser to Public Citizen. He also faulted the agency for not taking quicker action in mandating inclusion of the proposed boxed warning.

Issuing the labeling changes as draft guidance “is a ministep forward,” but also a process that “guarantees delay” and “creeps along at a dangerously slow pace,” Dr. Wolfe said. “The FDA is delaying what should be inevitable. The agency could put the boxed warning in place right now if they had the guts to do it.”

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Allergan, Establishment Labs, and Hans Biomed. Ms. Cook, Dr. Zuckerman, and Dr. Wolfe reported having no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Either the Tdap or Td vaccine is an acceptable option for pertussis vaccination in most situations, recommended the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

copyright Jacopo Werther/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution 2.0

In a unanimous 14-0 vote at the October meeting, ACIP members agreed that current data support the use of either the Tdap or Td pertussis vaccine in three areas: as a decennial booster, for tetanus prophylaxis and in the setting of wound management, and for additional catch-up doses based on the immunization schedule for persons aged 7 years and older.

Safety data showed no differences in safety concerns between Tdap and Td, including data from pregnant women, said Fiona Havers, MD, of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Atlanta.

Several of the ACIP members noted that the revised language to include both Tdap and Td reflects the increased use of Tdap and allows for maximum flexibility in clinical settings.

The revised language advises that booster doses of “either Td or Tdap” every 10 years throughout life are recommended for continued protection against tetanus and diphtheria. In addition, either Td or Tdap should be used if a tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine is indicated for prophylaxis in nonpregnant individuals.

For catch-up recommendations, which also apply to pregnant women, the committee approved the following wording for a series of three doses for individuals aged 7-18 years and 19 years and older who have never been vaccinated, that “the preferred schedule is a dose of Tdap (preferably the first dose), followed by either Tdap or Td at least 4 weeks afterward and another dose of either Td or Tdap 6-12 months later.” Individuals in these same age groups who are not fully vaccinated should receive one dose of Tdap, and a dose of either Td or Tdap if additional doses are needed.

The committee also voted unanimously 14-0 to accept the updated wording for pertussis vaccination in the Vaccines for Children program.

The ACIP members had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Tuberculosis is one of the top ten causes of death worldwide and the leading cause from a single infectious agent. In the 2012-2017 period, there were more than 9,000 cases of TB each year in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that untreated TB is a greater hazard to a pregnant woman and her fetus than its treatment.

In the material below, the molecular weights, rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses after the drug name. Those less than 1,000 or so suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In the second half of pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, nearly all drugs will cross regardless of their molecular weight.

Para-aminosalicylic acid (Paser) (153) is most frequently used in combination with other agents for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) is defined as being caused by TB bacteria that is resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampin, the two most potent TB drugs. The drug has been associated with a marked increased risk of birth defects in some, but not all, studies. Because of this potential risk, the drug is best avoided in the first trimester. The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Bedaquiline (Sirturo) (556) is used in combination therapy for patents with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. One report describing the use of this drug during human pregnancy has been located. Treatment was started in the last 3 weeks of pregnancy and no abnormalities were noted in the child at birth and for 2 years after birth (Emerg Infect Dis. 2017. doi: 10.3201/eid2310.161398). The CDC states that the drug should be used only in a minimum four-drug treatment regimen and administered by direct observation (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013 Oct 25;62[RR-09]:1-12). The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Capreomycin (Capastat) (653-669) is a polypeptide antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces capreolus that is given intramuscularly. The human pregnancy data are limited to three reports. The toxicity of capreomycin is similar to aminoglycosides (e.g., cranial nerve VIII and renal) and it should not be used with these agents. The CDC has classified the drug as contraindicated in pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Cycloserine (Seromycin) (102) is a broad spectrum antibiotic. The human pregnancy data are limited but have not shown embryo-fetal harm. Although the best course is to avoid the drug during gestation, it should not be withheld because of pregnancy if the maternal condition requires the antibiotic. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified cycloserine as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethambutol (Myambutol) (205) should be used in conjunction with other antituberculosis drugs. The human pregnancy data do not suggest an embryo-fetal risk. A frequently used regimen is ethambutol + isoniazid + rifampin. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified ethambutol as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethionamide (Trecator) (166) is indicated when Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to isoniazid or rifampin, or when the patient is intolerant to other drugs. Although the animal reproductive data suggest risk, the limited human data suggest that the risk is probably low. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy. Although the molecular weight suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, no reports describing the amount in milk have been located.

Isoniazid (137) is compatible in pregnancy, even though the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta, because the maternal benefit is much greater than the potential embryo-fetal risk. Although the human data are limited, the molecular weight also suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, but it can be considered probably compatible during breastfeeding. No reports of isoniazid-induced effects in the nursing infant have been located, but the potential for interference with nucleic acid function and for hepatotoxicity may exist.

Pyrazinamide (123) is metabolized to an active metabolite. The molecular weight, low plasma protein binding (10%), and prolonged elimination half-life (9-10 hours) suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug has been used in human pregnancy without causing embryo-fetal harm. Similar results, although limited, were reported when the drug was used during breastfeeding.

Rifabutin (Mycobutin) (847) has no reported human pregnancy data, but the animal data suggest low risk. The drug probably crosses the placenta throughout pregnancy. The maternal benefit appears to outweigh the unknown risk to the embryo-fetus, so therapy should not be withheld because of pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk.

Rifampin (Rifadin) (823) appears to be compatible in pregnancy. Several reviews and reports have concluded that the drug was not a teratogen and recommended use of the drug with isoniazid and ethambutol. However, prophylactic vitamin K₁ has been recommended to prevent drug-induced hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

Rifapentine (Priftin) (877) was toxic and teratogenic in two animal species at doses close to those used in humans. In a 2018 study, however, the rates of fetal loss in pregnancies of less than 20 weeks (8/54, 15%) and congenital anomalies in live births (1/37, 3%) were within the expected background rates (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 May;15[4]:570-80). There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

The CDC classifies four antituberculosis and one class of drugs as contraindicated in pregnancy. In addition to capreomycin mentioned above, they are amikacin, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin), kanamycin, and streptomycin. These ten agents are discussed in the 11th edition of my book “Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation,” (Wolters Kluwer Health: Riverwood, Il., 2017). If they have to be used, checking this source will provide information that has to be discussed with the patient.
 

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs had no disclosures, except for his book. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Tuberculosis is one of the top ten causes of death worldwide and the leading cause from a single infectious agent. In the 2012-2017 period, there were more than 9,000 cases of TB each year in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that untreated TB is a greater hazard to a pregnant woman and her fetus than its treatment.

In the material below, the molecular weights, rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses after the drug name. Those less than 1,000 or so suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In the second half of pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, nearly all drugs will cross regardless of their molecular weight.

Para-aminosalicylic acid (Paser) (153) is most frequently used in combination with other agents for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) is defined as being caused by TB bacteria that is resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampin, the two most potent TB drugs. The drug has been associated with a marked increased risk of birth defects in some, but not all, studies. Because of this potential risk, the drug is best avoided in the first trimester. The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Bedaquiline (Sirturo) (556) is used in combination therapy for patents with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. One report describing the use of this drug during human pregnancy has been located. Treatment was started in the last 3 weeks of pregnancy and no abnormalities were noted in the child at birth and for 2 years after birth (Emerg Infect Dis. 2017. doi: 10.3201/eid2310.161398). The CDC states that the drug should be used only in a minimum four-drug treatment regimen and administered by direct observation (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013 Oct 25;62[RR-09]:1-12). The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Capreomycin (Capastat) (653-669) is a polypeptide antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces capreolus that is given intramuscularly. The human pregnancy data are limited to three reports. The toxicity of capreomycin is similar to aminoglycosides (e.g., cranial nerve VIII and renal) and it should not be used with these agents. The CDC has classified the drug as contraindicated in pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Cycloserine (Seromycin) (102) is a broad spectrum antibiotic. The human pregnancy data are limited but have not shown embryo-fetal harm. Although the best course is to avoid the drug during gestation, it should not be withheld because of pregnancy if the maternal condition requires the antibiotic. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified cycloserine as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethambutol (Myambutol) (205) should be used in conjunction with other antituberculosis drugs. The human pregnancy data do not suggest an embryo-fetal risk. A frequently used regimen is ethambutol + isoniazid + rifampin. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified ethambutol as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethionamide (Trecator) (166) is indicated when Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to isoniazid or rifampin, or when the patient is intolerant to other drugs. Although the animal reproductive data suggest risk, the limited human data suggest that the risk is probably low. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy. Although the molecular weight suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, no reports describing the amount in milk have been located.

Isoniazid (137) is compatible in pregnancy, even though the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta, because the maternal benefit is much greater than the potential embryo-fetal risk. Although the human data are limited, the molecular weight also suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, but it can be considered probably compatible during breastfeeding. No reports of isoniazid-induced effects in the nursing infant have been located, but the potential for interference with nucleic acid function and for hepatotoxicity may exist.

Pyrazinamide (123) is metabolized to an active metabolite. The molecular weight, low plasma protein binding (10%), and prolonged elimination half-life (9-10 hours) suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug has been used in human pregnancy without causing embryo-fetal harm. Similar results, although limited, were reported when the drug was used during breastfeeding.

Rifabutin (Mycobutin) (847) has no reported human pregnancy data, but the animal data suggest low risk. The drug probably crosses the placenta throughout pregnancy. The maternal benefit appears to outweigh the unknown risk to the embryo-fetus, so therapy should not be withheld because of pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk.

Rifampin (Rifadin) (823) appears to be compatible in pregnancy. Several reviews and reports have concluded that the drug was not a teratogen and recommended use of the drug with isoniazid and ethambutol. However, prophylactic vitamin K₁ has been recommended to prevent drug-induced hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

Rifapentine (Priftin) (877) was toxic and teratogenic in two animal species at doses close to those used in humans. In a 2018 study, however, the rates of fetal loss in pregnancies of less than 20 weeks (8/54, 15%) and congenital anomalies in live births (1/37, 3%) were within the expected background rates (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 May;15[4]:570-80). There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

The CDC classifies four antituberculosis and one class of drugs as contraindicated in pregnancy. In addition to capreomycin mentioned above, they are amikacin, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin), kanamycin, and streptomycin. These ten agents are discussed in the 11th edition of my book “Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation,” (Wolters Kluwer Health: Riverwood, Il., 2017). If they have to be used, checking this source will provide information that has to be discussed with the patient.
 

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs had no disclosures, except for his book. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Tuberculosis is one of the top ten causes of death worldwide and the leading cause from a single infectious agent. In the 2012-2017 period, there were more than 9,000 cases of TB each year in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that untreated TB is a greater hazard to a pregnant woman and her fetus than its treatment.

In the material below, the molecular weights, rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses after the drug name. Those less than 1,000 or so suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In the second half of pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, nearly all drugs will cross regardless of their molecular weight.

Para-aminosalicylic acid (Paser) (153) is most frequently used in combination with other agents for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) is defined as being caused by TB bacteria that is resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampin, the two most potent TB drugs. The drug has been associated with a marked increased risk of birth defects in some, but not all, studies. Because of this potential risk, the drug is best avoided in the first trimester. The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Bedaquiline (Sirturo) (556) is used in combination therapy for patents with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. One report describing the use of this drug during human pregnancy has been located. Treatment was started in the last 3 weeks of pregnancy and no abnormalities were noted in the child at birth and for 2 years after birth (Emerg Infect Dis. 2017. doi: 10.3201/eid2310.161398). The CDC states that the drug should be used only in a minimum four-drug treatment regimen and administered by direct observation (MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013 Oct 25;62[RR-09]:1-12). The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Capreomycin (Capastat) (653-669) is a polypeptide antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces capreolus that is given intramuscularly. The human pregnancy data are limited to three reports. The toxicity of capreomycin is similar to aminoglycosides (e.g., cranial nerve VIII and renal) and it should not be used with these agents. The CDC has classified the drug as contraindicated in pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its use during breastfeeding.

Cycloserine (Seromycin) (102) is a broad spectrum antibiotic. The human pregnancy data are limited but have not shown embryo-fetal harm. Although the best course is to avoid the drug during gestation, it should not be withheld because of pregnancy if the maternal condition requires the antibiotic. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified cycloserine as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethambutol (Myambutol) (205) should be used in conjunction with other antituberculosis drugs. The human pregnancy data do not suggest an embryo-fetal risk. A frequently used regimen is ethambutol + isoniazid + rifampin. The American Academy of Pediatrics classified ethambutol as compatible with breastfeeding.

Ethionamide (Trecator) (166) is indicated when Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to isoniazid or rifampin, or when the patient is intolerant to other drugs. Although the animal reproductive data suggest risk, the limited human data suggest that the risk is probably low. If indicated, the drug should not be withheld because of pregnancy. Although the molecular weight suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, no reports describing the amount in milk have been located.

Isoniazid (137) is compatible in pregnancy, even though the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta, because the maternal benefit is much greater than the potential embryo-fetal risk. Although the human data are limited, the molecular weight also suggests that the drug will be excreted into breast milk, but it can be considered probably compatible during breastfeeding. No reports of isoniazid-induced effects in the nursing infant have been located, but the potential for interference with nucleic acid function and for hepatotoxicity may exist.

Pyrazinamide (123) is metabolized to an active metabolite. The molecular weight, low plasma protein binding (10%), and prolonged elimination half-life (9-10 hours) suggest that the drug will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug has been used in human pregnancy without causing embryo-fetal harm. Similar results, although limited, were reported when the drug was used during breastfeeding.

Rifabutin (Mycobutin) (847) has no reported human pregnancy data, but the animal data suggest low risk. The drug probably crosses the placenta throughout pregnancy. The maternal benefit appears to outweigh the unknown risk to the embryo-fetus, so therapy should not be withheld because of pregnancy. The drug probably is excreted into breast milk.

Rifampin (Rifadin) (823) appears to be compatible in pregnancy. Several reviews and reports have concluded that the drug was not a teratogen and recommended use of the drug with isoniazid and ethambutol. However, prophylactic vitamin K₁ has been recommended to prevent drug-induced hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

Rifapentine (Priftin) (877) was toxic and teratogenic in two animal species at doses close to those used in humans. In a 2018 study, however, the rates of fetal loss in pregnancies of less than 20 weeks (8/54, 15%) and congenital anomalies in live births (1/37, 3%) were within the expected background rates (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018 May;15[4]:570-80). There are no data regarding its use during breastfeeding, but it is probably compatible.

The CDC classifies four antituberculosis and one class of drugs as contraindicated in pregnancy. In addition to capreomycin mentioned above, they are amikacin, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, gemifloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin), kanamycin, and streptomycin. These ten agents are discussed in the 11th edition of my book “Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation,” (Wolters Kluwer Health: Riverwood, Il., 2017). If they have to be used, checking this source will provide information that has to be discussed with the patient.
 

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs had no disclosures, except for his book. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Postpartum women who participated in a couples-based cognitive-behavioral therapy program showed less postpartum depression than did women in a solo program, according to data from 388 couples.

Previous studies have shown that both men and women experience depression up to 1 year after the birth of a child, but “no studies have compared the relative effectiveness of couple-based and women-alone interventions on parental mental health,” wrote F-W Ngai of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and colleagues.

In a study published in the BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the researchers randomized 134 childbearing Chinese couples to a couples-based cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI), 124 women to a women-only CBI, and 130 controls who did not receive CBI. The CBI consisted of one 3-hour antenatal group session and two 30-mintue postnatal telephone sessions. Depressive symptoms were assessed during pregnancy as a baseline, and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months post partum and measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Demographic characteristics were similar among the groups.

Overall, mothers in the couples-based CBI group showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks post partum, compared with women in the women-only group or the controls (average differences in scores on the EPDS of 1.46 and 1.71, respectively). In addition, the percentage of women who met criteria for postnatal depression with an EPDS score of at least 10 was significantly lower (17.8% difference) in the couples-based CBI group compared with controls at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the differences between the groups were no longer significant at 6 months and 12 months post partum, and no differences in depression scores were seen among fathers at any time point.

“The findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of the couple-based cognitive behavioral intervention in improving postnatal depression among mothers, but not fathers,” and additional research is needed to find interventions that protect new fathers from depression, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use only of self-reports for postpartum assessment and the homogeneous nature of the study population (all were educated, first-time Chinese parents), the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that couples-based CBI is feasible for use in primary care to promote perinatal health, they concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ngai F-W et al. BJOG. 2019. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15862.

Postpartum women who participated in a couples-based cognitive-behavioral therapy program showed less postpartum depression than did women in a solo program, according to data from 388 couples.

Previous studies have shown that both men and women experience depression up to 1 year after the birth of a child, but “no studies have compared the relative effectiveness of couple-based and women-alone interventions on parental mental health,” wrote F-W Ngai of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and colleagues.

In a study published in the BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the researchers randomized 134 childbearing Chinese couples to a couples-based cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI), 124 women to a women-only CBI, and 130 controls who did not receive CBI. The CBI consisted of one 3-hour antenatal group session and two 30-mintue postnatal telephone sessions. Depressive symptoms were assessed during pregnancy as a baseline, and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months post partum and measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Demographic characteristics were similar among the groups.

Overall, mothers in the couples-based CBI group showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks post partum, compared with women in the women-only group or the controls (average differences in scores on the EPDS of 1.46 and 1.71, respectively). In addition, the percentage of women who met criteria for postnatal depression with an EPDS score of at least 10 was significantly lower (17.8% difference) in the couples-based CBI group compared with controls at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the differences between the groups were no longer significant at 6 months and 12 months post partum, and no differences in depression scores were seen among fathers at any time point.

“The findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of the couple-based cognitive behavioral intervention in improving postnatal depression among mothers, but not fathers,” and additional research is needed to find interventions that protect new fathers from depression, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use only of self-reports for postpartum assessment and the homogeneous nature of the study population (all were educated, first-time Chinese parents), the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that couples-based CBI is feasible for use in primary care to promote perinatal health, they concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ngai F-W et al. BJOG. 2019. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15862.

Postpartum women who participated in a couples-based cognitive-behavioral therapy program showed less postpartum depression than did women in a solo program, according to data from 388 couples.

Previous studies have shown that both men and women experience depression up to 1 year after the birth of a child, but “no studies have compared the relative effectiveness of couple-based and women-alone interventions on parental mental health,” wrote F-W Ngai of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and colleagues.

In a study published in the BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the researchers randomized 134 childbearing Chinese couples to a couples-based cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI), 124 women to a women-only CBI, and 130 controls who did not receive CBI. The CBI consisted of one 3-hour antenatal group session and two 30-mintue postnatal telephone sessions. Depressive symptoms were assessed during pregnancy as a baseline, and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months post partum and measured using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Demographic characteristics were similar among the groups.

Overall, mothers in the couples-based CBI group showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks post partum, compared with women in the women-only group or the controls (average differences in scores on the EPDS of 1.46 and 1.71, respectively). In addition, the percentage of women who met criteria for postnatal depression with an EPDS score of at least 10 was significantly lower (17.8% difference) in the couples-based CBI group compared with controls at 6 weeks postpartum. However, the differences between the groups were no longer significant at 6 months and 12 months post partum, and no differences in depression scores were seen among fathers at any time point.

“The findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of the couple-based cognitive behavioral intervention in improving postnatal depression among mothers, but not fathers,” and additional research is needed to find interventions that protect new fathers from depression, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use only of self-reports for postpartum assessment and the homogeneous nature of the study population (all were educated, first-time Chinese parents), the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that couples-based CBI is feasible for use in primary care to promote perinatal health, they concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ngai F-W et al. BJOG. 2019. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15862.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are at a higher risk for metabolic and psychiatric comorbidities prior to pregnancy, cardiometabolic complications during pregnancy, and cardiometabolic and psychiatric complications in the postpartum period, according to results from a prize paper at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Our findings do support the ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] recommendations that women with PCOS should be considered a high-risk group, and during the postpartum period should be screened for cardiovascular as well as psychiatric comorbidities,” Anuja Dokras, MD, PhD, director of the Penn Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in her presentation.

Dr. Dokras and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study during 2000-2016 of patients aged 18-50 years, in the Optum claims database, which comprised 42,391 women with PCOS and 795,480 women without PCOS in 50 U.S. states. Women were included in the analysis if there were data available for at least 6 months to 1 year before pregnancy and between 6 weeks and 1 year after pregnancy. The researchers looked at risk factors prior to pregnancy, such as depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and use of assisted reproductive technology. During pregnancy, Dr. Dokras and colleagues analyzed complications such as preterm birth, multiple gestation, cesarean section, gestational hypertension and diabetes, preeclampsia and eclampsia, and depression in addition to outcomes in the postpartum period, such as hypertensive complications, thrombotic disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, heart failure, arterial complications, perinatal and postpartum depression.

“Realizing that PCOS is underreported in administrative data sets, we looked at not only the diagnosis of PCOS but also tried to combine any menstrual irregularity and hirsutism occurring simultaneously, and then doing a sensitivity analysis and looking at the population,” said Dr. Dokras. “Similarly, knowing that misclassification can be an issue in these datasets, we did the same thing amongst the controls, looking for a single diagnosis of irregular menses and hirsutism.”

Prior to pregnancy, women with PCOS in the dataset tended to have a higher rate of obesity (14.7% vs. 4.7%), hyperlipidemia (11.3% vs. 5.3%), hypertension (6.2% vs. 2.5%), diabetes (5.3% vs. 1.2%), and depression (4.3% vs. 3.1%) and were also more likely to use assisted reproductive technology (5.2% vs. 1.0%) than were patients without PCOS (all P less than .001). During pregnancy, there was a higher rate of gestational diabetes (13.7% vs. 7.7%), preeclampsia (5.0% vs. 2.6%), preterm birth (16.9% vs. 12.2%), multiple gestation (6.6% vs. 2.5%), and cesarean section (45.1% vs. 32.9%) in patients with PCOS, compared with those without PCOS (all P less than .001).

For patients in the postpartum period, women with PCOS were more likely to experience postpartum thrombotic disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.09; P = .001), hypertensive heart disease (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.01; P = .027), eclampsia (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003), heart failure (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .007), preeclampsia (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45; P = than .001), and peripartum cardiomyopathy (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .027).

With regard to depression, women with PCOS also were at greater risk of developing perinatal (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.22-1.33) and postpartum (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.36-1.57) depression, compared with women without PCOS (both P less than .001).

Dr. Dokras acknowledged the limitations of administrative datasets and noted that prospective studies need to be conducted to verify their findings.

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dokras reported being a consultant for Medtronic, AbbVie, and Ferring.

SOURCE: Dokras A, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-93.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are at a higher risk for metabolic and psychiatric comorbidities prior to pregnancy, cardiometabolic complications during pregnancy, and cardiometabolic and psychiatric complications in the postpartum period, according to results from a prize paper at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Our findings do support the ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] recommendations that women with PCOS should be considered a high-risk group, and during the postpartum period should be screened for cardiovascular as well as psychiatric comorbidities,” Anuja Dokras, MD, PhD, director of the Penn Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in her presentation.

Dr. Dokras and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study during 2000-2016 of patients aged 18-50 years, in the Optum claims database, which comprised 42,391 women with PCOS and 795,480 women without PCOS in 50 U.S. states. Women were included in the analysis if there were data available for at least 6 months to 1 year before pregnancy and between 6 weeks and 1 year after pregnancy. The researchers looked at risk factors prior to pregnancy, such as depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and use of assisted reproductive technology. During pregnancy, Dr. Dokras and colleagues analyzed complications such as preterm birth, multiple gestation, cesarean section, gestational hypertension and diabetes, preeclampsia and eclampsia, and depression in addition to outcomes in the postpartum period, such as hypertensive complications, thrombotic disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, heart failure, arterial complications, perinatal and postpartum depression.

“Realizing that PCOS is underreported in administrative data sets, we looked at not only the diagnosis of PCOS but also tried to combine any menstrual irregularity and hirsutism occurring simultaneously, and then doing a sensitivity analysis and looking at the population,” said Dr. Dokras. “Similarly, knowing that misclassification can be an issue in these datasets, we did the same thing amongst the controls, looking for a single diagnosis of irregular menses and hirsutism.”

Prior to pregnancy, women with PCOS in the dataset tended to have a higher rate of obesity (14.7% vs. 4.7%), hyperlipidemia (11.3% vs. 5.3%), hypertension (6.2% vs. 2.5%), diabetes (5.3% vs. 1.2%), and depression (4.3% vs. 3.1%) and were also more likely to use assisted reproductive technology (5.2% vs. 1.0%) than were patients without PCOS (all P less than .001). During pregnancy, there was a higher rate of gestational diabetes (13.7% vs. 7.7%), preeclampsia (5.0% vs. 2.6%), preterm birth (16.9% vs. 12.2%), multiple gestation (6.6% vs. 2.5%), and cesarean section (45.1% vs. 32.9%) in patients with PCOS, compared with those without PCOS (all P less than .001).

For patients in the postpartum period, women with PCOS were more likely to experience postpartum thrombotic disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.09; P = .001), hypertensive heart disease (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.01; P = .027), eclampsia (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003), heart failure (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .007), preeclampsia (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45; P = than .001), and peripartum cardiomyopathy (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .027).

With regard to depression, women with PCOS also were at greater risk of developing perinatal (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.22-1.33) and postpartum (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.36-1.57) depression, compared with women without PCOS (both P less than .001).

Dr. Dokras acknowledged the limitations of administrative datasets and noted that prospective studies need to be conducted to verify their findings.

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dokras reported being a consultant for Medtronic, AbbVie, and Ferring.

SOURCE: Dokras A, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-93.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are at a higher risk for metabolic and psychiatric comorbidities prior to pregnancy, cardiometabolic complications during pregnancy, and cardiometabolic and psychiatric complications in the postpartum period, according to results from a prize paper at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Our findings do support the ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] recommendations that women with PCOS should be considered a high-risk group, and during the postpartum period should be screened for cardiovascular as well as psychiatric comorbidities,” Anuja Dokras, MD, PhD, director of the Penn Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in her presentation.

Dr. Dokras and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study during 2000-2016 of patients aged 18-50 years, in the Optum claims database, which comprised 42,391 women with PCOS and 795,480 women without PCOS in 50 U.S. states. Women were included in the analysis if there were data available for at least 6 months to 1 year before pregnancy and between 6 weeks and 1 year after pregnancy. The researchers looked at risk factors prior to pregnancy, such as depression, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity, smoking, and use of assisted reproductive technology. During pregnancy, Dr. Dokras and colleagues analyzed complications such as preterm birth, multiple gestation, cesarean section, gestational hypertension and diabetes, preeclampsia and eclampsia, and depression in addition to outcomes in the postpartum period, such as hypertensive complications, thrombotic disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, heart failure, arterial complications, perinatal and postpartum depression.

“Realizing that PCOS is underreported in administrative data sets, we looked at not only the diagnosis of PCOS but also tried to combine any menstrual irregularity and hirsutism occurring simultaneously, and then doing a sensitivity analysis and looking at the population,” said Dr. Dokras. “Similarly, knowing that misclassification can be an issue in these datasets, we did the same thing amongst the controls, looking for a single diagnosis of irregular menses and hirsutism.”

Prior to pregnancy, women with PCOS in the dataset tended to have a higher rate of obesity (14.7% vs. 4.7%), hyperlipidemia (11.3% vs. 5.3%), hypertension (6.2% vs. 2.5%), diabetes (5.3% vs. 1.2%), and depression (4.3% vs. 3.1%) and were also more likely to use assisted reproductive technology (5.2% vs. 1.0%) than were patients without PCOS (all P less than .001). During pregnancy, there was a higher rate of gestational diabetes (13.7% vs. 7.7%), preeclampsia (5.0% vs. 2.6%), preterm birth (16.9% vs. 12.2%), multiple gestation (6.6% vs. 2.5%), and cesarean section (45.1% vs. 32.9%) in patients with PCOS, compared with those without PCOS (all P less than .001).

For patients in the postpartum period, women with PCOS were more likely to experience postpartum thrombotic disease (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.09; P = .001), hypertensive heart disease (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.01; P = .027), eclampsia (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.14-1.86; P = .003), heart failure (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .007), preeclampsia (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45; P = than .001), and peripartum cardiomyopathy (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .027).

With regard to depression, women with PCOS also were at greater risk of developing perinatal (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.22-1.33) and postpartum (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.36-1.57) depression, compared with women without PCOS (both P less than .001).

Dr. Dokras acknowledged the limitations of administrative datasets and noted that prospective studies need to be conducted to verify their findings.

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dokras reported being a consultant for Medtronic, AbbVie, and Ferring.

SOURCE: Dokras A, et al. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-93.

Drizalma Sprinkle (duloxetine delayed-release capsule) has launched for the treatment of various neuropsychiatric and pain disorders in patients with difficulty swallowing, according to a release from Sun Pharma. It can be swallowed whole, sprinkled on applesauce, or administered via nasogastric tube.

Difficulty swallowing affects approximately 30%-35% of long-term care residents, but the main alternative – crushing tablets – introduces risks of its own to the administration process.

This sprinkle is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults, generalized anxiety disorder in patients aged 7 years and older, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in adults, and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications July 19, 2019.

It carries a boxed warning for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The most common adverse reactions (5% or more of treated participants and twice the incidence with placebo) were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, constipation, decreased appetite, and hyperhidrosis. The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Drizalma Sprinkle (duloxetine delayed-release capsule) has launched for the treatment of various neuropsychiatric and pain disorders in patients with difficulty swallowing, according to a release from Sun Pharma. It can be swallowed whole, sprinkled on applesauce, or administered via nasogastric tube.

Difficulty swallowing affects approximately 30%-35% of long-term care residents, but the main alternative – crushing tablets – introduces risks of its own to the administration process.

This sprinkle is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults, generalized anxiety disorder in patients aged 7 years and older, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in adults, and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications July 19, 2019.

It carries a boxed warning for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The most common adverse reactions (5% or more of treated participants and twice the incidence with placebo) were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, constipation, decreased appetite, and hyperhidrosis. The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Drizalma Sprinkle (duloxetine delayed-release capsule) has launched for the treatment of various neuropsychiatric and pain disorders in patients with difficulty swallowing, according to a release from Sun Pharma. It can be swallowed whole, sprinkled on applesauce, or administered via nasogastric tube.

Difficulty swallowing affects approximately 30%-35% of long-term care residents, but the main alternative – crushing tablets – introduces risks of its own to the administration process.

This sprinkle is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults, generalized anxiety disorder in patients aged 7 years and older, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in adults, and chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for these indications July 19, 2019.

It carries a boxed warning for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The most common adverse reactions (5% or more of treated participants and twice the incidence with placebo) were nausea, dry mouth, somnolence, constipation, decreased appetite, and hyperhidrosis. The full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com