OBG Management

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

CASE Sexually active woman asks about the HPV vaccine

A 26-year-old woman delivered her first child 4 weeks ago. She has had 3 lifetime sexual partners and is now in a mutually faithful monogamous relationship with her partner. She has no known history of sexually transmissible infections. She received only one Pap test 3 years ago, and the cytology showed no abnormal cells. This cervical specimen was not tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. At the time of her postpartum appointment, she inquires whether she is a candidate for the HPV vaccine.

What should be your response?
 

Genital HPV infection is the most common sexually transmissible infection in the United States. This virus is the cause of multiple genital malignancies, including cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, and cervix. The organism is also now the major cause of oropharyngeal cancer.

Of the more than 200 different HPV types that have been identified, 12 have been defined as oncogenic (high risk), and 8 to 12 types have been defined as possibly or probably oncogenic. The HPV strain with the highest risk of progression to cancer is HPV 16. The strains HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 11,500 new cases of invasive cervical cancer occur. Unfortunately, this malignancy is responsible for about 4,000 deaths annually. Worldwide, HPV causes approximately 690,000 cancers each year.¹

To a large extent, most cases of HPV infection would be preventable if patients were to take advantage of the remarkably effective HPV vaccine that is now available. However, acceptance of the vaccine has been disappointing. In 2020, only about half of adolescents, age 13 to 15, had received the appropriate number of vaccine doses.¹

As ObGyn physicians, we can take several measures, in concert with our pediatrician colleagues, to improve HPV vaccination rates. In this article, I review the development of the HPV vaccine and describe the components, indications, dosing schedules, contraindications, adverse effects, and cost of the vaccine.

HPV vaccine development and expansion

The first HPV vaccine introduced in the United States was the recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil; Merck); it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006. This vaccine is composed of viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18 (the 2 most common causes of cervical, penile, anal, and oropharyngeal cancer) and HPV 6 and 11 (the 2 most common causes of genital warts). The formulation is prepared in baker’s yeast, and it elicits a robust production of neutralizing antibodies.²

In 2009, the FDA approved the bivalent vaccine (Cervarix; GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals). This vaccine contains viral-like particles unique to HPV 16 and 18, and it also induces a robust immune response. The vaccine is prepared in insect viral vectors.²

Both the quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines are no longer available in the United States. The only HPV vaccine currently marketed is the recombinant 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9; Merck), which was approved by the FDA in 2014. This newer vaccine targets the original 4 viral HPV strains in the quadrivalent vaccine (16, 18, 6, 11) plus 5 additional oncogenic strains: 31, 33, 45, 52, 58.^2-4 The HPV strains targeted by this vaccine are responsible for approximately 90% of all cancers caused by HPV.

The 9-valent HPV vaccine, like the other 2, is highly effective in preventing cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, anus, penis; oropharyngeal cancers; and precancerous lesions such as genital warts.^2-5 It will not, however, prevent the progression of preexisting infection or clear an infection that is already present at the time of vaccination.¹

Although the original protocol for administration of the vaccine provided for 3 doses, recent studies indicate that 2 doses may be as effective as 3 in eliciting a favorable antibody response.⁶ There also is evidence that even a single dose of the vaccine can elicit a protective immune response.⁷ This encouraging finding is particularly important to public health officials responsible for developing HPV vaccination programs in low- and middle-resource countries.

Continue to: Target groups for the HPV vaccine...

Target groups for the HPV vaccine

The primary target group for the HPV vaccine is girls and boys who are aged 11 to 12 years. The key strategy is to immunize these individuals before they become sexually active. The vaccine also should be offered to children who are aged 9 to 10 years of age if they are judged to be at unusual risk, such as because of concern about sexual molestation. Children in these 2 age groups should receive 2 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 6 to 12 months after the first dose.

The second target group for vaccination is individuals who are aged 13 to 26 years who have never been vaccinated. They should be offered catch-up vaccination. If older than age 15, they should receive 3 doses of the vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 to 2 months after the first dose and the third dose administered 6 months after the first dose.¹

A third target group is individuals who are aged 27 to 45 years and who, in their own opinion or in the opinion of their physician, are at new or increased risk for HPV infection. These individuals should receive the 3-dose vaccine series as outlined above.¹

Patients in any age range who are immunocompromised, for example, due to HIV infection, should receive the 3-dose series.¹

The approximate retail cost of a single 0.5-mL intramuscular dose of the 9-valent vaccine is $240 (www.goodrx.com).

Vaccine adverse effects

The most common reactions to the HPV vaccine are inflammation at the site of injection, fatigue, headache, fever, gastrointestinal upset, vertigo, cough, and oropharyngeal discomfort. The most serious reaction—which fortunately is very rare—is anaphylaxis.¹

Contraindications to the vaccine

The HPV vaccine should not be used in any patient who is hypersensitive to any component of the vaccine, including yeast. It should not be given to a patient who is moderately or severely ill at the time of the scheduled administration. Because of an abundance of caution, the manufacturer also recommends that the vaccine not be given to pregnant women even though the agent does not contain live virus.¹

Of note, a study by Scheller and colleagues was very reassuring about the lack of adverse effects of HPV vaccine administration in pregnancy.⁸ The authors evaluated a large cohort of pregnant women in Demark and found that exposure to the vaccine was not associated with an increase in the frequency of major birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, low birthweight, fetal growth restriction, or stillbirth.⁸

Barriers to vaccination

One important barrier to HPV vaccination is patient apprehension that the vaccine may cause genital tract or oropharyngeal cancer. The patient should be reassured that the vaccine does not contain infectious viral particles and does not transmit infection. Rather, it builds robust immunity to infection.

Another important barrier is the misconception that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity in preteenagers and teenagers. Absolutely no evidence supports this belief. Multiple studies have demonstrated that teenagers do not engage in more high-risk sexual behavior following vaccination.

A specific barrier related to vaccination of young boys is the philosophical viewpoint that, “Why should my young male child be vaccinated to protect against a disease (specifically cervical cancer) that occurs only in girls and women?” The appropriate answer to this question is that the vaccine also protects against penile cancer, anal cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, and genital warts. While penile and anal cancers are rare, the other 2 conditions are not. In fact, oropharyngeal cancer is significantly more common in males than females.

A final important barrier to HPV vaccination is cost. The new evidence that demonstrated the effectiveness of a 2-dose vaccine series, and even single-dose vaccination, is of great importance in minimizing cost of the HPV vaccine series, in the absence of full reimbursement by public and private insurance agencies.

Continue to: Creating an effective vaccination program...

Creating an effective vaccination program

The following commonsense guidelines, which we have implemented at our medical center, should be helpful in organizing an effective HPV vaccination program for your office or department^4,9,10:

• One clinician in the department or practice should be designated the “vaccination champion.” This individual should provide colleagues with periodic updates, emphasizing the importance of the HPV vaccine and other vaccines, such as Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), influenza, COVID, pneumococcal, hepatitis B, herpes zoster (shingles), and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus).
• One staff member in the practice or department should be designated as the go-to person for all logistical matters related to vaccines. This individual should be responsible for estimating usage, ordering vaccines, and storing them properly. He or she also should be knowledgeable about the cost of the vaccines and insurance reimbursement for the vaccines.
• Signs and educational materials should be posted in strategic locations in the office, advising patients of the importance of timely vaccination for themselves and their adolescent children.
• At every encounter, patients should be encouraged to receive the HPV vaccine series if they are in the appropriate age range and social situation for vaccination. They should not be required to have HPV testing before vaccine administration.
• Key leaders in the department or practice should lobby effectively with their pediatrician colleagues and with public and private insurance companies to encourage timely administration and proper coverage of this important immunization.

Other measures to reduce the risk of HPV-mediated malignancies

Practitioners should advise their patients to:

• Be circumspect in selection of sexual partners.
• Use male or female condoms when engaging in vaginal, anal, and/or oral sex with multiple partners, particularly those who may have genital or oral condylomas.
• Have regular Pap tests, every 3 to 5 years, depending upon age. More frequent testing may be indicated if there is a history of previous abnormal testing.
• Seek prompt medical or surgical treatment for genital or oral condylomas.

CASE Resolved with HPV vaccination

This patient is an excellent candidate for catch-up vaccination. She should receive the first dose of the 9-valent HPV vaccine at the time of her postpartum appointment. The second dose should be administered 1 to 2 months later. The third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose. She also should have a Pap test, either cytology alone or cytology plus HPV screening. If the latter test is chosen and is reassuring, she will not need retesting for 5 years. If the former test is chosen, she should have a repeat test in 3 years. ●

VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.¹ In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.² VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.³

All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).⁴ Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.

Escitalopram and paroxetine

Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.^5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.¹¹ In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.⁵ The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:

• if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
• if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.

Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.⁶

Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.⁹ In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.⁹ Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.¹⁰

Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.¹² Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;^13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.

Continue to: Gabapentin...

Gabapentin

Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.¹⁵ In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.¹⁶ Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).¹⁷ Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.

High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.

ILLUSTRATION: ZONDA/ZAZA STUDIO/SHUTTERSTOCK

Fezolinetant

In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.¹⁸ Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.¹⁹

Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.²⁰ In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.²¹ In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.

Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.²¹ Similar results were reported in a companion study.²²

Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.²⁰ Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.

Effective VMS treatment improves overall health

Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with²³:

• high-quality diet
• daily physical activity
• appropriate body mass index
• nicotine avoidance
• a healthy sleep schedule
• normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.

Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.²⁴ ●

VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.¹ In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.² VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.³

All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).⁴ Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.

Escitalopram and paroxetine

Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.^5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.¹¹ In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.⁵ The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:

• if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
• if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.

Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.⁶

Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.⁹ In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.⁹ Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.¹⁰

Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.¹² Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;^13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.

Continue to: Gabapentin...

Gabapentin

Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.¹⁵ In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.¹⁶ Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).¹⁷ Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.

High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.

ILLUSTRATION: ZONDA/ZAZA STUDIO/SHUTTERSTOCK

Fezolinetant

In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.¹⁸ Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.¹⁹

Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.²⁰ In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.²¹ In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.

Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.²¹ Similar results were reported in a companion study.²²

Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.²⁰ Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.

Effective VMS treatment improves overall health

Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with²³:

• high-quality diet
• daily physical activity
• appropriate body mass index
• nicotine avoidance
• a healthy sleep schedule
• normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.

Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.²⁴ ●

VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.¹ In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.² VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.³

All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).⁴ Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.

Escitalopram and paroxetine

Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.^5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.¹¹ In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.⁵ The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:

• if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
• if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.

Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.⁶

Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.⁹ In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.⁹ Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.¹⁰

Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.¹² Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;^13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.

Continue to: Gabapentin...

Gabapentin

Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.¹⁵ In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.¹⁶ Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).¹⁷ Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.

High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.

ILLUSTRATION: ZONDA/ZAZA STUDIO/SHUTTERSTOCK

Fezolinetant

In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.¹⁸ Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.¹⁹

Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.²⁰ In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.²¹ In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.

Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.²¹ Similar results were reported in a companion study.²²

Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.²⁰ Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.

Effective VMS treatment improves overall health

Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with²³:

• high-quality diet
• daily physical activity
• appropriate body mass index
• nicotine avoidance
• a healthy sleep schedule
• normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.

Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.²⁴ ●

Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.¹ Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABA_A (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.¹ In 2019, the GABA_A receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.

Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABA_A receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD² and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.³ Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.⁴

Details of the study

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.

The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.

The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.

Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).

With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.

Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●

Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.¹ Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABA_A (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.¹ In 2019, the GABA_A receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.

Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABA_A receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD² and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.³ Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.⁴

Details of the study

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.

The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.

The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.

Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).

With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.

Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●

Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.¹ Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABA_A (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.¹ In 2019, the GABA_A receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.

Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABA_A receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD² and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.³ Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.⁴

Details of the study

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.

The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.

The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.

Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).

With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.

Study strengths and limitations

This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.

Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●

[polldaddy:12782738]

[polldaddy:12782738]

[polldaddy:12782738]

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

Endometrial ablation continues to be performed in significant numbers in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 cases annually. Several nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices have been approved for use, and some are now discontinued. The newest endometrial ablation therapy to gain US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and to have published outcomes is the Cerene cryotherapy ablation device (Channel Medsystems, Inc). The results of 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study were published last year, and we have chosen to review these long-term data in addition to that of a second study in which investigators assessed the ability to access the endometrial cavity postcryoablation. We believe this is important because of concerns about the inability to access the endometrial cavity after ablation, as well as the potential for delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. It is interesting that 2 publications simultaneously reviewed the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation within the past 12 months, and we therefore present those findings as they provide valuable information.

Our second focus in this year’s Update is to provide additional information about the burgeoning data on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. We review evidence on linzagolix from the PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 trials and longer-term data on relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

Three-year follow-up after endometrial cryoablation with the Cerene device found high patient satisfaction, low hysterectomy rates

Curlin HL, Cintron LC, Anderson TL. A prospective, multicenter, clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of the Cerene device to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28;899-908.

Curlin HL, Anderson TL. Endometrial cryoablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: 36-month outcomes from the CLARITY study. Int J Womens Health. 2022;14:1083-1092.
 

The 12-month data on the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Cerene cryoablation device were published in 2021 in the CLARITY trial.¹ The 36-month outcomes were published in 2022 and showed sustained clinical effects through month 36 with a low risk of adverse outcomes.² The interesting aspect of this trial is that although the amenorrhea rate was relatively low at 12 months (6.5%), it continued to remain relatively low compared with rates found with other devices, but the amenorrhea rate increased at 36 months (14.4%). This was the percentage of patients who reported, “I no longer get my period.”

Patient satisfaction was high

Despite a relatively low amenorrhea rate, study participants had a high satisfaction rate and a low 3-year hysterectomy rate. Eighty-five percent of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied, and the cumulative hysterectomy rate was low at 5%.

The overall reintervention rate was 8.7%. Six patients were treated with medications, 2 patients underwent repeat endometrial ablation, 1 received a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device, and 12 underwent hysterectomy.

At 36 months, 201 of the original 242 participants were available for assessment. Unfortunately, 5 pregnancies were reported through the 6-month posttreatment period, which emphasizes the importance of having reliable contraception. However, there were no reports of hematometra or postablation tubal sterilization syndrome (PATSS).

Effect on bleeding was long term

The main finding of the CLARITY study is that the Cerene cryoablation device appears to have a relatively stable effect on bleedingfor the first 3 years after therapy, with minimal risk of hematometra and PATSS. What we find interesting is that despite Cerene cryoablation having one of the lowest amenorrhea rates, it not only had a satisfaction rate in line with that of other devices but also had a low hysterectomy rate—only 5%—at 3 years.

The study authors pointed out that there is a lack of scarring within the endometrial cavity with the Cerene device. Some may find less endometrial scarring worth a low amenorrhea rate in the context of a favorable satisfaction rate. This begs the question, how well can the endometrial cavity be assessed? For answers, keep reading.

Can the endometrial cavity be reliably accessed after Cerene cryoablation?

Endometrial ablation has been associated with intracavitary scarring that results in hematometra, PATSS, and a concern for difficulty in performing an adequate endometrial assessment in patients who develop postablation abnormal uterine bleeding.

In a prospective study, 230 participants (of an initial 242) treated with Cerene cyroablation were studied with hysteroscopic evaluation of the endometrial cavity 12 months after surgery.³ The uterine cavity was accessible in 98.7% of participants. The cavity was not accessible in 3 participants due to pain or cervical stenosis.

Visualization of the uterine cavity was possible by hysteroscopy in 92.7% of study participants (204 of 220), with 1 or both tubal ostia identified in 89.2%. Both tubal ostia were visible in 78.4% and 1 ostium was visible in 10.8%. The cavity was not visualized in 16 of the 220 patients (7.2%) due to intrauterine adhesions, technical difficulties, or menstruation. Also of note, 97 of the 230 participants available at the 12-month follow-up had undergone tubal sterilization before cryoablation and none reported symptoms of PATSS or hematometra, which may be considered surrogate markers for adhesions.

Continue to: Tissue effects differ with ablation technique...

Tissue effects differ with ablation technique

The study authors suggested that different tissue effects occur with freezing compared with heating ablation techniques. With freezing, over weeks to months the chronic inflammatory tissue is eventually replaced by a fibrous scar of collagen, with some preservation of the collagen matrix during tissue repair. This may be different from the charring and boiling of heated tissue that results in architectural tissue loss and may interfere with wound repair and tissue remodeling. Although the incidence of postoperative adhesions after endometrial ablation is not well studied, it is encouraging that most patients who received cryoablation with the Cerene device were able to undergo an evaluation of the endometrium without general anesthesia.

Key takeaway

The main idea from this study is that the endometrium can be assessed by office hysteroscopy in most patients who undergo cryoablation with the Cerene device. This may have advantages in terms of reducing the risk of PATSS and hematometra, and it may allow easier evaluation of the endometrium for patients who have postablation abnormal uterine bleeding. This begs the question, does intrauterine scarring influence the detection of endometrial cancer? For answers, keep reading.

Does endometrial ablation place a patient at higher risk for a delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer?

Radestad AF, Dahm-Kahler P, Holmberg E, et al. Long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial resection and ablation: a population based Swedish gynecologic cancer group (SweGCG) study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:923-930.
 

Oderkerk TJ, van de Kar MRD, Cornel KMC, et al. Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation: a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2022;32:1555-1560.

The answer to this question appears to be no, based on 2 different types of studies. One study was a 20-year population database review from Sweden,⁴ and the other was a systematic review of 11 cohort studies.⁵

Population-based study findings

The data from the Swedish population database is interesting because since 1994 all Swedish citizens have been allocated a unique personal identification number at birth or immigration that enables official registries and research. In reviewing their data from 1997 through 2017, Radestad and colleagues compared transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and other forms of endometrial ablation against the Swedish National Patient Register data for endometrial cancer.⁴ They found no increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE (0.3%) or after endometrial ablation (0.02%) and suggested a significantly lower incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation.

This study is beneficial because it is the largest study to explore the long-term incidence of endometrial cancer after TCRE and endometrial ablation. The investigators hypothesized that, as an explanation for the difference between rates, ablation may burn deeper into the myometrium and treat adenomyosis compared with TCRE. However, they also were cautious to note that although this was a 20-year study, the incidence of endometrial carcinoma likely will reach a peak in the next few years.

Systematic review conclusions

In the systematic review, out of 890 publications from the authors’ database search, 11 articles were eventually included for review.⁵ A total of 29,102 patients with endometrial ablation were followed for a period of up to 25 years, and the incidence of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation varied from 0.0% to 1.6%. A total of 38 cases of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation have been described in the literature. Of those cases, bleeding was the most common presenting symptom of the disease. Endometrial sampling was successful in 89% of cases, and in 90% of cases, histological exam showed an early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Based on their review, the authors concluded that the incidence of endometrial cancer was not increased in patients who received endometrial ablation, and more importantly, there was no apparent delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation. They further suggested that diagnostic management with endometrial sampling did not appear to be a barrier.

Longer-term data for relugolix combination treatment of symptomatic uterine bleeding from fibroids shows sustained efficacy

Al-Hendy A, Lukes AS, Poindexter AN, et al. Long-term relugolix combination therapy for symptomatic uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140:920-930.

Relugolix combination therapy was previously reported to be effective for the treatment of fibroids based on the 24-week trials LIBERTY 1 and LIBERTY 2. We now have information about longer-term therapy for up to 52 weeks of treatment.⁶

Relugolix combination therapy is a once-daily single tablet for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding thought to be due to uterine fibroids in premenopausal women. It is comprised of relugolix 40 mg (a GnRH antagonist), estradiol 1.0 mg, and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg.

Continue to: Extension study showed sustained efficacy...

The study by Al-Hendy and colleagues showed that the relugolix combination not only was well tolerated but also that there was sustained improvement in heavy bleeding, with the average patient having an approximately 90% decrease in menstrual bleeding from baseline.⁶ It was noted that 70.6% of patients achieved amenorrhea over the last 35 days of treatment.

Importantly, the treatment effect was independent of race, body mass index, baseline menstrual blood loss, and uterine fibroid volume. The bone mineral density (BMD) change trajectory was similar to what was observed in the pivotal study. No new safety concerns were identified, and BMD generally was preserved.

Linzagolix is the newest GnRH antagonist to be studied in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Donnez J, Taylor HS, Stewart EA, et al. Linzagolix with and without hormonal add-back therapy for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids: two randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2022;400:896-907.

At the time of this writing, linzagolix was not approved by the FDA. The results of the PRIMROSE 1 (P1) and PRIMROSE 2 (P2) trials were published last year as 2 identical 52-week randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.⁷ The difference between the development of linzagolix as a GnRH antagonist and other similar medications is the strategy of potential partial hypothalamic pituitary ovarian axis suppression at 100 mg versus complete suppression at 200 mg. In this trial by Donnez and colleagues, both linzagolix doses were evaluated with and without add-back hormonal therapy and also were compared with placebo in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio.⁷

Study details and results

To be eligible for this study, participants had to have heavy menstrual bleeding, defined as more than 80 mL for at least 2 cycles, and have at least 1 fibroid that was 2 cm in diameter or multiple small fibroids with the calculated uterine volume of more than 200 cm³. No fibroid larger than 12 cm in diameter was included.

The primary end point was a menstrual blood loss of 80 mL or less and a 50% or more reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline in the 28 days before week 24. Uterine fibroid volume reduction and a safety assessment, including BMD assessment, also were studied.

In the P1 trial, which was conducted in US sites, the response rate for the primary objective was 56.4% in the linzagolix 100-mg group, 66.4% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 71.4% in the 200-mg group, and 75.5% in the 200-mg plus add-back group, compared with 35.0% in the placebo group.

In the P2 trial, which included sites in both Europe and the United States, the response rates were 56.7% in the 100-mg group, 77.2% in the 100-mg plus add-back therapy group, 77.7% in the 200-mg group, and 93.9% in the 200-mg plus add-back therapy group, compared with 29.4% in the placebo group. Thus, in both trials a significantly higher proportion of menstrual reduction occurred in all linzagolix treatment groups compared with placebo.

As expected, the incidence of hot flushes was the highest in participants taking the linzagolix 200-mg dose without add-back hormonal therapy, with hot flushes occurring in 35% (P1) and 32% (P2) of patients, compared with all other groups, which was 3% to 14%. All treatment groups showed improvement in quality-of-life scores compared with placebo. Of note, to achieve reduction of fibroid volume in the 40% to 50% range, this was observed consistently only with the linzagolix 200-mg alone dose.

Linzagolix effect on bone

Decreases in BMD appeared to be dose dependent, as lumbar spine losses of up to 4% were noted with the linzgolix 200-mg dose, and a 2% loss was observed with the 100-mg dose at 24 weeks. However, these were improved with add-back therapy. There were continued BMD decreases at 52 weeks, with up to 2.4% with 100 mg of linzagolix and up to 1.5% with 100 mg plus add-back therapy, and up to 2% with 200 mg of linzagolix plus add-back therapy. ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

COMMENTARY

Answering the protein question when prescribing plant-based diets

Cate Collings, MD

Science supports the use of a whole food, predominantly plant-based dietary pattern for optimal health, including reduced risk for chronic disease, and best practice in treatment of leading chronic disease.

But clinicians who prescribe such eating patterns encounter a common concern from patients whose health may benefit.

“Where will I get my protein?”

We’ve all heard it, and it’s understandable. Patients know that protein is essential for their health and strength, and animal foods have developed a reputation for being the premier protein sources that humans should prioritize through diet. But widespread misconceptions about human needs for protein have inaccurately equated animal food as the best and only sources of protein, augmented by fad diets and modern food marketing. All of this leads to confusion about how much protein people should actually consume and the quality of protein found in plant foods, making many patients reluctant to fully embrace a whole food.

To ensure that patients have all the facts when making dietary decisions, clinicians need to be prepared to respond to concerns about protein adequacy and quality with evidence-based information. A good starting point for these conversations is to assess how much protein patients are already consuming. A review of the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that women normally consume an average of 69 g and men an average of 97 g of protein daily.

As a general point of reference, the recommended dietary allowance for protein is about 0.8 g/kg of bodyweight (or 0.36 g/lb), which equates to about 52 g of protein per day for a 145-lb woman and 65 g for a 180-lb man. But for many patients, it may be best to get a more precise recommendation based upon age, gender and physical activity level by using a handy Department of Agriculture tool for health care professionals to calculate daily protein and other nutrient needs. Patients can also use one of countless apps to track their protein and other nutrient intake. By using the tool and a tracking app, both clinician and patients can be fully informed whether protein needs are being met.
 

LATEST NEWS

Continuous glucose monitors for pregnant patients?

Robert Fulton

Patients with pregestational diabetes may benefit from use of a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump paired with a continuous glucose monitor. Use of the tools has been associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal morbidity, a recent study found.

“We were seeing an unacceptable burden of both maternal and fetal disease in our diabetic population,” said Neil Hamill, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Methodist Women’s Hospital, Omaha, Neb., and an author of the study. “We thought the success with this technology in the nonpregnant population would and should translate into the pregnant population.”

Dr. Hamill and his colleagues analyzed data from 55 pregnant patients who received care at the Women’s Hospital Perinatal Center at the Nebraska Methodist Health System between October 2019 and October 2022. Everyone in the cohort had pregestational diabetes and required insulin prior to week 20 of pregnancy. They used CGMs for more than 2 weeks. The study set blood glucose levels of less than 140 mg/dL as a healthy benchmark.

Participants who had severe preeclampsia, who had delivered preterm, who had delivered a neonate with respiratory distress syndrome, and/or who had given birth to a larger-than-expected infant spent less time in the safe zone — having a blood glucose level below 140 mg/dL—than women who did not have those risk factors.

“When blood sugar control is better, maternal and fetal outcomes are improved,” Dr. Hamill said.

Neetu Sodhi, MD, an ob.gyn. at Providence Cedars-Sinai Tarzana Medical Center, Los Angeles, expressed optimism that use of blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps can improve outcomes for pregnant patients with pregestational diabetes.

“This is just another case for why it’s so important for patients to have access to these types of devices that really, really improve their outcomes and their health, and now it’s proven in the case of pregnancy outcomes too – or at least suggested strongly with this data,” Dr. Sodhi said.

Continue to: It may be time to pay attention to COVID again...

It may be time to pay attention to COVID again

Kara Grant; Damian McNamara, MA

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 era, most Americans have settled back into their prepandemic lifestyles. But a new dominant variant and rising hospitalization numbers may give way to another summer surge.

Since April, a new COVID variant has cropped up. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, EG.5—from the Omicron family—now makes up 17% of all cases in the United States, up from 7.5% in the first week of July.

A summary from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota says that EG.5, nicknamed “Eris” by health trackers, is nearly the same as its parent strain, XBB.1.9.2, but has one extra spike mutation.

Along with the news of EG.5’s growing prevalence, COVID-related hospitalization rates have increased by 12.5% during the week ending on July 29—the most significant uptick since December. Still, no connection has been made between the new variant and rising hospital admissions. And so far, experts have found no difference in the severity of illness or symptoms between Eris and the strains that came before it.

Cause for concern?

The COVID virus has a great tendency to mutate, said William Schaffner, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“Fortunately, these are relatively minor mutations.” Even so, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to be highly contagious. “There isn’t any doubt that it’s spreading—but it’s not more serious.”

So, Dr. Schaffner doesn’t think it’s time to panic. He prefers calling it an “uptick” in cases instead of a “surge,” because a surge “sounds too big.”

While the numbers are still low, compared with 2022’s summer surge, experts still urge people to stay aware of changes in the virus. “I do not think that there is any cause for alarm,” agreed Bernard Camins, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

So why the higher number of cases? “There has been an increase in COVID cases this summer, probably related to travel, socializing, and dwindling masking,” said Anne Liu, MD, an allergy, immunology, and infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. Even so, “because of an existing level of immunity from vaccination and prior infections, it has been limited and case severity has been lower than in prior surges.” ●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hepatitis B is one of the more common infections encountered in the daily practice of obstetrics. It is responsible for 40% to 45% of all cases of viral hepatitis.^1,2 Hepatitis B may cause serious complications in both the infected mother and neonate.

In this article, I review the virology, epidemiology, and clinical presentation of hepatitis B and then discuss the key diagnostic tests and, subsequently, the clinical management for both the mother and neonate. I focus particular attention on relatively new information about the value of specific antiviral medication to enhance the protective effect of conventional neonatal immunoprophylaxis.

To set the framework for the discussion, consider the following 2 case studies.

CASE 1 Undetectable level of hepatitis B surface antibody in a pregnant woman

A 25-year-old healthy primigravid woman at 10 weeks’ gestation had a series of laboratory studies that included a test for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb). The test for the surface antigen was negative. The test for the surface antibody was below the level of detection. Upon questioning, the patient indicates that she received the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine when she was age 13 years.

• What treatment, if any, is indicated for this patient?
• What treatment is indicated for her neonate?

CASE 2 Pregnant woman tests positive for hepatitis B surface antigen

A 31-year-old woman (G3P2002) at 12 weeks’ gestation tested positive for HBsAg. She indicates that she never has had symptomatic hepatitis and that she considers herself to be in excellent health.

• What additional laboratory tests are indicated at this time?
• What additional laboratory test should be performed at the end of the second trimester?
• What treatment is indicated for the mother and neonate?

Virology and epidemiology of hepatitis B

Hepatitis B is caused by a double-stranded, enveloped DNA virus. The virus has 10 genotypes and 24 subtypes.³ The organism contains 3 major antigens. Detection of these antigens and their corresponding antibodies is an essential step in the diagnostic workup of patients who may be infected.

The surface antigen (HBsAg) confers infectivity and is the most valuable serologic marker of infection. The e antigen (HBeAg) is not present in every infected patient. It is secreted from infected cells, but it is not incorporated into the viral particle. When present, it denotes a high level of viral replication and exceptionally high infectivity. The core antigen (HBcAg) is a valuable serologic marker for distinguishing between acute and chronic infection.^1-3

Hepatitis B is highly infectious, much more so than HIV or hepatitis C. The virus has an incubation period of 4 weeks to 6 months, and the duration of incubation is inversely related to the size of the viral inoculum. The virus is transmitted in 3 principal ways: sexual contact with contaminated genital tract secretions, contact with infected blood from sharing contaminated drug-injecting paraphernalia or from receiving a blood transfusion (extremely rare today), and transmission from an infected mother to her neonate. Perinatal transmission occurs primarily during the delivery process as opposed to transplacental infection. Transmission also can occur by more casual household contact, such as sharing eating utensils, kissing, and handling an infant.^1,2,4,5

Worldwide, more than 400 million people have chronic hepatitis B infection. In the United States, approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million individuals are infected. Several groups are at particularly high risk for being infected, including^1-3:

• Asians
• Alaska Natives
• sub-Saharan Africans
• sex workers
• intravenous drug users
• individuals with hemophilia
• international travelers
• staff and residents of long-term care facilities
• tattoo recipients.

Continue to: Clinical presentation...

Approximately 90% of adult patients who contract hepatitis B, either symptomatically or asymptomatically, will develop protective levels of antibody and clear the virus from their system. They will then have lifelong immunity to reinfection. Approximately 10% of patients will fail to develop protective levels of antibody and will become chronically infected, posing a risk to their household members, sexual contacts, and their fetus if they become pregnant. Persistence of the surface antigen in the patient’s serum for more than 6 months denotes chronic infection. A very small number of individuals—less than 1%—will develop acute liver failure and experience a fatal outcome.^1-3,5

In the United States, the prevalence of acute hepatitis B in pregnancy is 1 to 2 per 1,000. Clinical manifestations typically include anorexia, nausea, low-grade fever, right upper quadrant pain and tenderness, passage of clay-colored stools, and jaundice.

The prevalence of chronic infection in pregnancy is significantly higher, approximately 5 to 15 per 1,000. Over the long term, patients with chronic infection are at risk for progressive liver injury, including cirrhosis and even hepatocellular carcinoma. These serious sequelae are particularly likely to occur when the patient is co-infected with hepatitis C, D, or both. The overall risk of progression to chronic cirrhosis is approximately 15% to 30%. In patients who progress to cirrhosis, the annual incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma is 10%.^1-3

Diagnosis of hepatitis B infection

Patients with acute hepatitis B will test positive for HBsAg and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody to the core antigen. Some patients will also test positive for HBeAg. Assessment of the patient’s serum by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) allows quantitation of the viral load, which often is expressed as viral copies per milliliter. Alternatively, the quantitative hepatitis B DNA concentration may be expressed as international units per milliliter (IU/mL). The World Health Organization recommends this latter quantitative method. Multiplying the DNA in IU/mL by 5.6 provides the conversion to viral copies per milliliter.

Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection will test positive for the HBsAg and for immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody to the core antigen. They may also have a positive test for the HBeAg, and PCR may be used to quantify the viral load.^1-3

Managing hepatitis B infection in pregnancy

General supportive measures. All pregnant patients should be tested for the HBsAg and HBsAb at the time of the first prenatal appointment. The tests should be repeated at the beginning of the third trimester in high-risk patients. Seropositive patients should have a hepatitis B genotype, a test for the e antigen, and tests for other sexually transmissible infections (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV) and for hepatitis C and D. Liver function tests should be performed to assess for elevations in the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels. Patients with elevated transaminase enzymes should have a coagulation profile to be certain they are not at risk for a coagulopathy.

At the end of the second trimester, patients should have a PCR assessment to determine the viral load. This assessment will be important for deciding if specific antiviral therapy is indicated during the third trimester to enhance the effects of neonatal immunoprophylaxis (see below). Of note, patients who are positive for the e antigen may have a very high viral load and yet have normal or near-normal transaminase levels. This seemingly paradoxical finding reflects the non-cytopathic nature of hepatitis B.

The patient should optimize her nutrition and sleep. She should avoid, or at least minimize, medications such as acetaminophen that could cause further liver injury. Without question, she should refrain from consuming even small amounts of alcohol. She should be tested for immunity to hepatitis A; if found to be susceptible, she should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine. This agent is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for administration at any time in pregnancy.^1,2,5

Household contacts. In addition to the measures outlined above, the patient’s household contacts, particularly her sexual partner(s), should be tested for immunity to hepatitis B. If they do not have immunity by virtue of natural infection or previous vaccination, they should receive the hepatitis B vaccine series. It is also prudent to provide the sexual partner(s) with an initial dose of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) to provide a temporary level of passive immunity.

Postdelivery care. After delivery, the patient should be referred to an infectious disease specialist or hepatologist for consideration of long-term treatment with antiviral agents, such as interferon alfa, pegylated interferon alfa, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, telbivudine, or tenofovir.⁶ The principal candidates for treatment are those who have cirrhosis and detectable levels of hepatitis B DNA. The ultimate goal of treatment is to reduce the serum hepatitis B DNA concentration to an undetectable level. Once the surface antigenemia is cleared, treatment can be stopped. A cure is defined when the absence of hepa-titis B DNA in the serum is sustained.

Neonatal immunoprophylaxis

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends universal hepatitis B vaccination for all newborns. The first dose of the vaccine should be administered prior to hospital discharge. The second and third doses should be administered 1 and 6 months later.^1,2,5 There are few, if any, medical contraindications to neonatal vaccination. For the vast majority of infants, the immunity induced by vaccination is lifelong. For a small number, immunity may wane over time. Thus, reassessment of the HBsAb concentration is indicated in selected situations, for example, acute high-risk exposure to an infected person, development of an immunosuppressive disorder, or pregnancy.

Infants delivered to mothers who are infected with hepatitis B also should receive HBIG in addition to the vaccine. HBIG provides passive immunization to counteract the high viral inoculum encountered by the neonate during delivery. This preparation should be administered within 12 hours of birth.^1,2,5

In the absence of immunoprophylaxis, a neonate delivered to a mother who is seropositive for HBsAg has a 20% to 30% probability of becoming chronically infected. If the mother is positive for both the surface antigen and the e antigen, the risk of chronic infection increases to almost 90%. Approximately 90% of infants who are infected in the perinatal period subsequently develop chronic infection. However, with appropriate immunoprophylaxis in the neonatal period, the risk of perinatal transmission is reduced by 85% to 95%.^1,2,5

Cesarean delivery offers no additional protection beyond that provided by immunoprophylaxis. Moreover, because immunoprophylaxis is so effective, infected mothers may breastfeed without fear of transmitting infection to their infant. Shi and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk associated with breastfeeding in hepatitis B–infected mothers.⁷ Infants who breastfed did not have a higher rate of mother-to-child transmission, regardless of whether they received combined immunoprophylaxis or only hepatitis B vaccine and regardless of whether the HBsAg was detected in the mother’s breast milk. The only precaution is the need to avoid breastfeeding if the nipples are cracked or bleeding or if exudative lesions are present on the skin near the nipple.

Continue to: Maternal antiviral therapy...

Maternal antiviral therapy

As noted above, neonatal immunoprophylaxis is 85% to 95% effective in preventing perinatal transmission of hepatitis B infection. Failures of prophylaxis are primarily due to antenatal transmission in patients who have exceptionally high viral loads. Several cutoffs have been used to define “high viral load,” including greater than 1 to 2 million copies/mL and a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL. There is not a perfect consensus on the appropriate cutoff.

In essence, 2 different approaches have been tried to further reduce the risk of perinatal transmission in these high-risk patients.⁸ The first major initiative was administration of HBIG (100–200 IU) intramuscularly to the patient at 28, 32, and 36 weeks. The outcomes with this approach have been inconsistent, due, at least in part, to varying doses of the agent and various cutoffs for defining “high risk,” and this intervention is no longer recommended.^1,2

The second major approach is administration of specific antiviral drugs to the mother during the third trimester. The first agent widely used in clinical practice was lamivudine. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Shi and colleagues reported that, in infants whose mothers received lamivudine plus conventional neonatal immunuprophylaxis, the risk of perinatal infection was significantly reduced compared with infants who received only immunoprophylaxis.⁹

Although lamivudine is effective, there is considerable concern about the rapid development of viral resistance to the medication. Accordingly, most attention today is focused on the use of tenofovir to prevent perinatal transmission.

In an important early investigation, Pan and colleagues reported the results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in China in women with a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL (viral load > 1,120,000 copies/mL).¹⁰ Patients also were positive for the e antigen. Ninety-two patients were assigned to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), 300 mg daily, from 30 to 32 weeks until postpartum week 4 plus conventional neonatal immunoprophylaxis, and 100 patients were assigned to immunoprophylaxis alone. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 18 neonates in the control group were infected compared with 5 in the treatment group (P = .007). In the per-protocol analysis, 7 neonates in the control group were infected compared with 0 in the treatment group (P = .01). No clinically significant adverse maternal or neonatal effects occurred in the treatment group.

Subsequently, Jourdain and colleagues reported a multicenter, double-blind trial conducted in 17 public health hospitals in Thailand.¹¹ TDF (300 mg daily) or placebo was administered from 28 weeks’ gestation until 8 weeks postpartum. Patients in both arms of the study were positive for the e antigen; 87% to 90% of the patients had a serum hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL.Following birth, infants in both groups received an injection of HBIG and then 4 doses of hepatitis B vaccine (0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 months). Both the HBIG and hepatitis B vaccine were administered very promptly after birth (median time, 1.2–1.3 hours).

At 6 months after delivery, 2% of infants in the placebo group (3 of 147) were HBsAg-positive compared with none of the infants in the treatment arm.¹¹ No serious adverse effects occurred in infants in the TDF group. This difference in outcome was not statistically significant, but the overall rate of infection was so low in both groups that the sample size was definitely too small to exclude a type 2 statistical error. Moreover, the fourth dose of neonatal hepatitis B vaccine may have contributed to the surprisingly low rate of perinatal transmission. Of note, the serum hepatitis B DNA concentration in the TDF group declined from a mean of 7.6 log₁₀ IU/mL to a mean of 4.0 log₁₀ IU/mL at delivery.

In the most recent report, Wang and colleagues reported the results of a prospective cohort study in patients with a hepatitis B virus DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL.¹² Beginning at either 24 or 32 weeks, patients were assigned to treatment with either oral TDF (300 mg daily) or oral telbivudine (LdT, 600 mg daily). The medications were continued for 4 weeks postpartum. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rates of perinatal transmission were comparable, 1.5% versus 1.8%. In the per-protocol analysis, no infants in either group were infected. However, the predelivery decline in hepatitis Bvirus DNA concentration was greater in the TDF group. The ALT elevation rate was also lower in the TDF group. Patients in the LdT group had fewer problems with anorexia but more instances of arthralgia compared with those in the TDF group.

Based primarily on these 3 investigations, I recommend that all infected patients with a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL or a viral load greater than 1,120,000 million copies/mL receive oral TDF, 300 mg daily, from 28 weeks until at least 4 to 8 weeks postpartum. The decision about duration of postpartum treatment should be made in consultation with an infectious disease specialist or hepatologist.

Case studies resolved

CASE 1 No protective level of surface antibody

This patient should promptly receive a single booster dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. The vaccine is an inactivated agent and is safe for administration at any time in pregnancy. Following delivery and prior to discharge from the hospital, the neonate should receive the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. A second dose should be administered 1 month later, and a third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose.

CASE 2 Mother is seropositive for HBsAg

This patient should be tested immediately for HIV infection and hepatitis C and D. The hepatitis B viral genotype should be determined. She also should have a panel of liver function tests. If any of these tests are abnormal, a coagulation profile should be obtained to be certain that the patient is not at risk for a coagulopathy. Near the end of the second trimester, a hepatitis B viral load should be obtained. If the viral DNA concentration is greater than 200,000 IU/mLor a viral load greater than 1,120,000 million copies/mL, the patient should be treated with tenofovir, 300 mg daily, from week 28 until at least 4 weeks after delivery. The neonate should receive an injection of HBIG within 12 hours of birth and the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine prior to discharge from the hospital. Two additional doses of the vaccine should be administered 1 and 6 months later. ●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hepatitis B is one of the more common infections encountered in the daily practice of obstetrics. It is responsible for 40% to 45% of all cases of viral hepatitis.^1,2 Hepatitis B may cause serious complications in both the infected mother and neonate.

In this article, I review the virology, epidemiology, and clinical presentation of hepatitis B and then discuss the key diagnostic tests and, subsequently, the clinical management for both the mother and neonate. I focus particular attention on relatively new information about the value of specific antiviral medication to enhance the protective effect of conventional neonatal immunoprophylaxis.

To set the framework for the discussion, consider the following 2 case studies.

CASE 1 Undetectable level of hepatitis B surface antibody in a pregnant woman

A 25-year-old healthy primigravid woman at 10 weeks’ gestation had a series of laboratory studies that included a test for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb). The test for the surface antigen was negative. The test for the surface antibody was below the level of detection. Upon questioning, the patient indicates that she received the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine when she was age 13 years.

• What treatment, if any, is indicated for this patient?
• What treatment is indicated for her neonate?

CASE 2 Pregnant woman tests positive for hepatitis B surface antigen

A 31-year-old woman (G3P2002) at 12 weeks’ gestation tested positive for HBsAg. She indicates that she never has had symptomatic hepatitis and that she considers herself to be in excellent health.

• What additional laboratory tests are indicated at this time?
• What additional laboratory test should be performed at the end of the second trimester?
• What treatment is indicated for the mother and neonate?

Virology and epidemiology of hepatitis B

Hepatitis B is caused by a double-stranded, enveloped DNA virus. The virus has 10 genotypes and 24 subtypes.³ The organism contains 3 major antigens. Detection of these antigens and their corresponding antibodies is an essential step in the diagnostic workup of patients who may be infected.

The surface antigen (HBsAg) confers infectivity and is the most valuable serologic marker of infection. The e antigen (HBeAg) is not present in every infected patient. It is secreted from infected cells, but it is not incorporated into the viral particle. When present, it denotes a high level of viral replication and exceptionally high infectivity. The core antigen (HBcAg) is a valuable serologic marker for distinguishing between acute and chronic infection.^1-3

Hepatitis B is highly infectious, much more so than HIV or hepatitis C. The virus has an incubation period of 4 weeks to 6 months, and the duration of incubation is inversely related to the size of the viral inoculum. The virus is transmitted in 3 principal ways: sexual contact with contaminated genital tract secretions, contact with infected blood from sharing contaminated drug-injecting paraphernalia or from receiving a blood transfusion (extremely rare today), and transmission from an infected mother to her neonate. Perinatal transmission occurs primarily during the delivery process as opposed to transplacental infection. Transmission also can occur by more casual household contact, such as sharing eating utensils, kissing, and handling an infant.^1,2,4,5

Worldwide, more than 400 million people have chronic hepatitis B infection. In the United States, approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million individuals are infected. Several groups are at particularly high risk for being infected, including^1-3:

• Asians
• Alaska Natives
• sub-Saharan Africans
• sex workers
• intravenous drug users
• individuals with hemophilia
• international travelers
• staff and residents of long-term care facilities
• tattoo recipients.

Continue to: Clinical presentation...

Approximately 90% of adult patients who contract hepatitis B, either symptomatically or asymptomatically, will develop protective levels of antibody and clear the virus from their system. They will then have lifelong immunity to reinfection. Approximately 10% of patients will fail to develop protective levels of antibody and will become chronically infected, posing a risk to their household members, sexual contacts, and their fetus if they become pregnant. Persistence of the surface antigen in the patient’s serum for more than 6 months denotes chronic infection. A very small number of individuals—less than 1%—will develop acute liver failure and experience a fatal outcome.^1-3,5

In the United States, the prevalence of acute hepatitis B in pregnancy is 1 to 2 per 1,000. Clinical manifestations typically include anorexia, nausea, low-grade fever, right upper quadrant pain and tenderness, passage of clay-colored stools, and jaundice.

The prevalence of chronic infection in pregnancy is significantly higher, approximately 5 to 15 per 1,000. Over the long term, patients with chronic infection are at risk for progressive liver injury, including cirrhosis and even hepatocellular carcinoma. These serious sequelae are particularly likely to occur when the patient is co-infected with hepatitis C, D, or both. The overall risk of progression to chronic cirrhosis is approximately 15% to 30%. In patients who progress to cirrhosis, the annual incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma is 10%.^1-3

Diagnosis of hepatitis B infection

Patients with acute hepatitis B will test positive for HBsAg and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody to the core antigen. Some patients will also test positive for HBeAg. Assessment of the patient’s serum by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) allows quantitation of the viral load, which often is expressed as viral copies per milliliter. Alternatively, the quantitative hepatitis B DNA concentration may be expressed as international units per milliliter (IU/mL). The World Health Organization recommends this latter quantitative method. Multiplying the DNA in IU/mL by 5.6 provides the conversion to viral copies per milliliter.

Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection will test positive for the HBsAg and for immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody to the core antigen. They may also have a positive test for the HBeAg, and PCR may be used to quantify the viral load.^1-3

Managing hepatitis B infection in pregnancy

General supportive measures. All pregnant patients should be tested for the HBsAg and HBsAb at the time of the first prenatal appointment. The tests should be repeated at the beginning of the third trimester in high-risk patients. Seropositive patients should have a hepatitis B genotype, a test for the e antigen, and tests for other sexually transmissible infections (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV) and for hepatitis C and D. Liver function tests should be performed to assess for elevations in the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels. Patients with elevated transaminase enzymes should have a coagulation profile to be certain they are not at risk for a coagulopathy.

At the end of the second trimester, patients should have a PCR assessment to determine the viral load. This assessment will be important for deciding if specific antiviral therapy is indicated during the third trimester to enhance the effects of neonatal immunoprophylaxis (see below). Of note, patients who are positive for the e antigen may have a very high viral load and yet have normal or near-normal transaminase levels. This seemingly paradoxical finding reflects the non-cytopathic nature of hepatitis B.

The patient should optimize her nutrition and sleep. She should avoid, or at least minimize, medications such as acetaminophen that could cause further liver injury. Without question, she should refrain from consuming even small amounts of alcohol. She should be tested for immunity to hepatitis A; if found to be susceptible, she should be vaccinated with the hepatitis A vaccine. This agent is an inactivated vaccine and is safe for administration at any time in pregnancy.^1,2,5

Household contacts. In addition to the measures outlined above, the patient’s household contacts, particularly her sexual partner(s), should be tested for immunity to hepatitis B. If they do not have immunity by virtue of natural infection or previous vaccination, they should receive the hepatitis B vaccine series. It is also prudent to provide the sexual partner(s) with an initial dose of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) to provide a temporary level of passive immunity.

Postdelivery care. After delivery, the patient should be referred to an infectious disease specialist or hepatologist for consideration of long-term treatment with antiviral agents, such as interferon alfa, pegylated interferon alfa, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, telbivudine, or tenofovir.⁶ The principal candidates for treatment are those who have cirrhosis and detectable levels of hepatitis B DNA. The ultimate goal of treatment is to reduce the serum hepatitis B DNA concentration to an undetectable level. Once the surface antigenemia is cleared, treatment can be stopped. A cure is defined when the absence of hepa-titis B DNA in the serum is sustained.

Neonatal immunoprophylaxis

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends universal hepatitis B vaccination for all newborns. The first dose of the vaccine should be administered prior to hospital discharge. The second and third doses should be administered 1 and 6 months later.^1,2,5 There are few, if any, medical contraindications to neonatal vaccination. For the vast majority of infants, the immunity induced by vaccination is lifelong. For a small number, immunity may wane over time. Thus, reassessment of the HBsAb concentration is indicated in selected situations, for example, acute high-risk exposure to an infected person, development of an immunosuppressive disorder, or pregnancy.

Infants delivered to mothers who are infected with hepatitis B also should receive HBIG in addition to the vaccine. HBIG provides passive immunization to counteract the high viral inoculum encountered by the neonate during delivery. This preparation should be administered within 12 hours of birth.^1,2,5

In the absence of immunoprophylaxis, a neonate delivered to a mother who is seropositive for HBsAg has a 20% to 30% probability of becoming chronically infected. If the mother is positive for both the surface antigen and the e antigen, the risk of chronic infection increases to almost 90%. Approximately 90% of infants who are infected in the perinatal period subsequently develop chronic infection. However, with appropriate immunoprophylaxis in the neonatal period, the risk of perinatal transmission is reduced by 85% to 95%.^1,2,5

Cesarean delivery offers no additional protection beyond that provided by immunoprophylaxis. Moreover, because immunoprophylaxis is so effective, infected mothers may breastfeed without fear of transmitting infection to their infant. Shi and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk associated with breastfeeding in hepatitis B–infected mothers.⁷ Infants who breastfed did not have a higher rate of mother-to-child transmission, regardless of whether they received combined immunoprophylaxis or only hepatitis B vaccine and regardless of whether the HBsAg was detected in the mother’s breast milk. The only precaution is the need to avoid breastfeeding if the nipples are cracked or bleeding or if exudative lesions are present on the skin near the nipple.

Continue to: Maternal antiviral therapy...

Maternal antiviral therapy

As noted above, neonatal immunoprophylaxis is 85% to 95% effective in preventing perinatal transmission of hepatitis B infection. Failures of prophylaxis are primarily due to antenatal transmission in patients who have exceptionally high viral loads. Several cutoffs have been used to define “high viral load,” including greater than 1 to 2 million copies/mL and a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL. There is not a perfect consensus on the appropriate cutoff.

In essence, 2 different approaches have been tried to further reduce the risk of perinatal transmission in these high-risk patients.⁸ The first major initiative was administration of HBIG (100–200 IU) intramuscularly to the patient at 28, 32, and 36 weeks. The outcomes with this approach have been inconsistent, due, at least in part, to varying doses of the agent and various cutoffs for defining “high risk,” and this intervention is no longer recommended.^1,2

The second major approach is administration of specific antiviral drugs to the mother during the third trimester. The first agent widely used in clinical practice was lamivudine. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Shi and colleagues reported that, in infants whose mothers received lamivudine plus conventional neonatal immunuprophylaxis, the risk of perinatal infection was significantly reduced compared with infants who received only immunoprophylaxis.⁹

Although lamivudine is effective, there is considerable concern about the rapid development of viral resistance to the medication. Accordingly, most attention today is focused on the use of tenofovir to prevent perinatal transmission.

In an important early investigation, Pan and colleagues reported the results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in China in women with a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL (viral load > 1,120,000 copies/mL).¹⁰ Patients also were positive for the e antigen. Ninety-two patients were assigned to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), 300 mg daily, from 30 to 32 weeks until postpartum week 4 plus conventional neonatal immunoprophylaxis, and 100 patients were assigned to immunoprophylaxis alone. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 18 neonates in the control group were infected compared with 5 in the treatment group (P = .007). In the per-protocol analysis, 7 neonates in the control group were infected compared with 0 in the treatment group (P = .01). No clinically significant adverse maternal or neonatal effects occurred in the treatment group.

Subsequently, Jourdain and colleagues reported a multicenter, double-blind trial conducted in 17 public health hospitals in Thailand.¹¹ TDF (300 mg daily) or placebo was administered from 28 weeks’ gestation until 8 weeks postpartum. Patients in both arms of the study were positive for the e antigen; 87% to 90% of the patients had a serum hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL.Following birth, infants in both groups received an injection of HBIG and then 4 doses of hepatitis B vaccine (0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 months). Both the HBIG and hepatitis B vaccine were administered very promptly after birth (median time, 1.2–1.3 hours).

At 6 months after delivery, 2% of infants in the placebo group (3 of 147) were HBsAg-positive compared with none of the infants in the treatment arm.¹¹ No serious adverse effects occurred in infants in the TDF group. This difference in outcome was not statistically significant, but the overall rate of infection was so low in both groups that the sample size was definitely too small to exclude a type 2 statistical error. Moreover, the fourth dose of neonatal hepatitis B vaccine may have contributed to the surprisingly low rate of perinatal transmission. Of note, the serum hepatitis B DNA concentration in the TDF group declined from a mean of 7.6 log₁₀ IU/mL to a mean of 4.0 log₁₀ IU/mL at delivery.

In the most recent report, Wang and colleagues reported the results of a prospective cohort study in patients with a hepatitis B virus DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL.¹² Beginning at either 24 or 32 weeks, patients were assigned to treatment with either oral TDF (300 mg daily) or oral telbivudine (LdT, 600 mg daily). The medications were continued for 4 weeks postpartum. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rates of perinatal transmission were comparable, 1.5% versus 1.8%. In the per-protocol analysis, no infants in either group were infected. However, the predelivery decline in hepatitis Bvirus DNA concentration was greater in the TDF group. The ALT elevation rate was also lower in the TDF group. Patients in the LdT group had fewer problems with anorexia but more instances of arthralgia compared with those in the TDF group.

Based primarily on these 3 investigations, I recommend that all infected patients with a hepatitis B DNA concentration greater than 200,000 IU/mL or a viral load greater than 1,120,000 million copies/mL receive oral TDF, 300 mg daily, from 28 weeks until at least 4 to 8 weeks postpartum. The decision about duration of postpartum treatment should be made in consultation with an infectious disease specialist or hepatologist.

Case studies resolved

CASE 1 No protective level of surface antibody

This patient should promptly receive a single booster dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. The vaccine is an inactivated agent and is safe for administration at any time in pregnancy. Following delivery and prior to discharge from the hospital, the neonate should receive the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine. A second dose should be administered 1 month later, and a third dose should be administered 6 months after the first dose.

CASE 2 Mother is seropositive for HBsAg

This patient should be tested immediately for HIV infection and hepatitis C and D. The hepatitis B viral genotype should be determined. She also should have a panel of liver function tests. If any of these tests are abnormal, a coagulation profile should be obtained to be certain that the patient is not at risk for a coagulopathy. Near the end of the second trimester, a hepatitis B viral load should be obtained. If the viral DNA concentration is greater than 200,000 IU/mLor a viral load greater than 1,120,000 million copies/mL, the patient should be treated with tenofovir, 300 mg daily, from week 28 until at least 4 weeks after delivery. The neonate should receive an injection of HBIG within 12 hours of birth and the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine prior to discharge from the hospital. Two additional doses of the vaccine should be administered 1 and 6 months later. ●

ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT

Hepatitis B is one of the more common infections encountered in the daily practice of obstetrics. It is responsible for 40% to 45% of all cases of viral hepatitis.^1,2 Hepatitis B may cause serious complications in both the infected mother and neonate.

In this article, I review the virology, epidemiology, and clinical presentation of hepatitis B and then discuss the key diagnostic tests and, subsequently, the clinical management for both the mother and neonate. I focus particular attention on relatively new information about the value of specific antiviral medication to enhance the protective effect of conventional neonatal immunoprophylaxis.

To set the framework for the discussion, consider the following 2 case studies.

CASE 1 Undetectable level of hepatitis B surface antibody in a pregnant woman

A 25-year-old healthy primigravid woman at 10 weeks’ gestation had a series of laboratory studies that included a test for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb). The test for the surface antigen was negative. The test for the surface antibody was below the level of detection. Upon questioning, the patient indicates that she received the 3-dose hepatitis B vaccine when she was age 13 years.

• What treatment, if any, is indicated for this patient?
• What treatment is indicated for her neonate?