Drugs, Pregnancy & Lactation

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

In recent decades, natural products have had increased consumer attention in industrialized nations. One of the challenges is that “natural” can be more of a perception than a standard. “Herbal products” is a more frequently used and perhaps a more apt term. Herbal products come in many forms, including herbs used in food preparation, teas, infusions, caplets, dried extracts, essential oils, and tinctures.

Multiple prescription medications have pharmacologically active compounds that originated from herbal products, both historically and currently. Examples include the cardiac stimulant digoxin (foxglove plant), the antimalarial quinine (Cinchona bark), and antihypertensives (Rauwolfia serpentina). Indeed, the first pharmacologically active compound, morphine, was extracted from the seed pods of opium poppies approximately 200 years ago. This demonstrated that medications could be purified from plants and that a precise dose could be determined for administration. However, herbal products are grown and harvested in varying seasonal conditions and soil types, which, over time and geography, may contribute to variability in the levels of active compound in the final products.

The importance of active compound purification and consistent precise dosage in herbal products brings up the topic of regulation. Herbal products are considered dietary supplements and as such are Food and Drug Administration regulated as a food under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Regulation as a food product does not involve the same level of scrutiny as a medication. There is no requirement that manufacturers check for purity and consistency of their product’s active compound(s). Manufacturers must ensure that the claims they make about herbal products are not false or misleading. They must also support their claims with evidence. However, there is no requirement for the manufacturers to submit this evidence to the FDA. This can translate into a discrepancy between the claim on the product label and scientific evidence that the product does what it claims to do. In other words, the product may not be effective.

With uncertain efficacy, the safety of herbal products comes into focus. Very few herbal products (or their specific active compounds) have been scientifically studied for safety in pregnancy and lactation. Further, herbal products may contain contaminants. Metals such as lead and mercury occur naturally. Yet, because of human activities, both may have collected in areas where herbal products are grown. From a safety perspective, both can be concerning in pregnancy or lactation. Lead and mercury are two examples of metal contaminants. Other contaminants may include pesticides, chemicals, and bacteria or other microorganisms. Some liquid herbal products such as tinctures contain alcohol, which should be avoided in pregnancy. An additional consideration would be the potential for herbal products, including any of their known or unknown product contents, to interact with prescribed medications or anesthesia.
 

Select examples of herbal products

Astragalus is the root of an herb and it is used for reasons of boosting immunity, energy, and other functions. These and its purported promotion of breast milk flow (galactagogue) are unsupported. Safety concerns include irregular heartbeat and dizziness, rendering it unsafe for use in pregnancy and of unknown efficacy and safety in lactation.

Kombucha is an herbal product made from leaves (tea), sugar, a culture, and other varying products. Like many herbal products, it is both manufactured and home brewed. It is used for probiotic and antioxidant reasons. As a fermented product, kombucha may contain 0.2%-0.5% alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol and no known safe type of alcohol for use in pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in pregnancy can result in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, involving a range of birth defects and life-long intellectual, learning and behavioral disorders. Alcohol found in breast milk approximates the level of alcohol found in the maternal bloodstream. Alcohol-containing products should be avoided in pregnancy and lactation.

Nux vomica is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. It comes from the raw seeds (toxic) of an evergreen tree. It has serious safety concerns and yet it is still in use. It contains strychnine, which can harm both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. It is not recommended in lactation.

Red raspberry leaf is a leaf, brewed and ingested as a tea. It is used for reasons of preventing miscarriage, relieving nausea and stomach discomfort, toning the uterus, reducing labor pain, increasing breast milk production, and other functions. In low doses, it appears to be safe. In high doses, it can induce smooth muscle relaxation. Efficacy has not been demonstrated with labor and delivery or in increasing breast milk production.

Tabacum is an herbal product and is used for reasons of reducing nausea or vomiting in pregnancy. Its full name is Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) and it contains 2%-8% nicotine, which should be avoided in pregnancy. Nicotine is a health danger for the pregnant individual and can damage a developing fetus’ brain and lungs.

Unless otherwise scientifically demonstrated, herbal products should be considered medications with pharmacologic activity, potential adverse effects, and potential toxicity in pregnancy and lactation. It’s easy for a patient to forget about reporting any nonprescription medications during a patient-provider visit. As a provider, purposefully asking about all over-the-counter and herbal products during each visit can prompt the patient to provide this important information. Further, it may facilitate discussion about the continuation/discontinuation of products of unknown safety and unknown benefit, culminating in the serious reflection: “Is it really worth the risk?”

For further information about the safety of herbal products, consult local Poison Control Centers, MothertoBaby, MothertoBaby affiliates, and the National Institutes of Health Drugs and Lactation Database, LactMed.

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, and represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding studies of medication safety in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT.

.

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

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

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

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

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

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

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

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

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

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

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

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

Asthma effects about 10% of pregnant women worldwide. About 10% of these will have severe disease requiring oral corticosteroids. Brief reviews of asthma drugs are shown below. Because asthma can be a serious disease, selective treatment should not be withheld in pregnancy.

The trade names (if available) and molecular weights (rounded to the nearest whole number) are shown in parentheses. Nearly all of these drugs will cross the placenta.
 

Beclomethasone (Beconase AQ) (539)

Either beclomethasone or budesonide was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy, according to a position statement from a joint committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Benralizumab (Fasenra) (150,000)

There is no published human pregnancy data. Based on studies in monkeys, the drug crosses the placenta in the third trimester. It caused no fetal harm in monkeys when given throughout pregnancy. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to the drug during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting mothertobaby.org/Fasenra.

Budesonide (Rhinocort) (431)

Either budesonide or beclomethasone was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy in a position statement from a joint committee of ACOG and ACAAI published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Caffeine (194)

Although the amount of caffeine in commonly used beverages varies widely, caffeine consumption in pregnancy in moderate amounts does not pose a risk to the fetus. When used in moderation, no association with congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, preterm birth, and low birth weight have been proven.

Ciclesonide (Alvesco) (541)

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug produced no defects in rats but caused fetal toxicity in rabbits. Although the risk may be low because it is inhaled, avoiding it in the first trimester should be considered (see dexamethasone).

Cromolyn sodium (490)

Cromolyn was available as a nasal spray and oral solution, but it is no longer available in the United States. It is poorly absorbed into the systemic circulation. Neither the human nor the animal data suggest a risk of embryo-fetal harm.

Dexamethasone (392)

This is a corticosteroid with potency similar to betamethasone. Because large epidemiologic studies have found positive associations between systemic corticosteroids and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts, it is best to avoid this agent in the first trimester. However, when used for the treatment of asthma, other studies have not found a significantly increased risk of maternal or fetal complications. The difference in these outcomes may be related to the systemic concentrations of the drug.

Dyphylline (254) + guaifenesin (198) (Difil-G Forte) (Dilex-G 400) (Dy-G)

This is an OTC liquid drug taken orally. It has not been studied in pregnant animals, and there is no published human pregnancy data. However, these bronchodilator agents probably can be classified as low risk for the embryo and fetus. Dyphylline alone has been removed from the market.

Fluticasone (539) + vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) (775)

Fluticasone is a corticosteroid and vilanterol is a long acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that are given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the two agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug did not cause fetal harm in animals. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination.

Fluticasone (539) + umeclidinium (509) + vilanterol (Trelegy Ellipta) (776)

The combination of fluticasone (glucocorticoid), umeclidinium, and vilanterol (long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists) is given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the three agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. Although the three-drug combination has not been studied in pregnant rats and rabbits, the individual agents did not cause embryo-fetal harm in these species. There is no evidence that these agents, when given by inhalation, will harm the human embryo and/or fetus. No published human pregnancy reports for this fixed combination have been located.

Formoterol + mometasone (Dulera Aerosol) (841 / 521)

This combination is an aerosol product. Formoterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and mometasone is a topical corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination. The molecular weights suggest that both drugs will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In animals given high oral doses, both were teratogenic.

Ipratropium (Atrovent) (430)

Inhaled ipratropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is recommended for asthma in patients not responding adequately to other therapy. It was not teratogenic mice, rats, and rabbits. Although the human pregnancy data is limited, there is no evidence that the drug is hazardous to the fetus. It produces fewer systemic effects then atropine and may have an additive bronchodilatory effect to beta2 agonists.

Isoproterenol (211)

Isoproterenol is a sympathomimetic (bronchodilator) with beta-adrenergic effects that is given intravenously. No reports linking this agent with congenital defects have been located. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits but was in hamsters.

Levalbuterol (Xopenex HFA) (240)

Levalbuterol is the (R)-enantiomer of racemic albuterol. It is given by inhalation. No reports of its use in human pregnancy have been located. However, racemic albuterol is considered compatible in pregnancy, and there is no apparent reason not to classify levalbuterol the same way. The drug, when given orally, is teratogenic in animals. If levalbuterol is used in pregnancy for the treatment of asthma, health care professionals are encouraged to call the toll-free number (1-877-311-8972) for information about patient enrollment in an Organization of Teratology Specialists study.

Mepolizumab (Nucala) (149,000)

Mepolizumab is given by subcutaneous injection. It is not indicated for status asthmaticus. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta in the first half of pregnancy. The drug did not cause defects in monkeys and mice. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women with asthma exposed to Nucala during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting www.mothertobaby.org/asthma.

Metaproterenol (521)

Metaproterenol, a selective beta2-adrenergic agonist, is a respiratory (bronchodilator) that is given orally. Use of this agent in pregnancy has not been linked with congenital defects. However, the drug is teratogenic in animals.

Methylprednisolone (Medrol) (374)

This is an oral glucocorticoid. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. No reports relating to its use in human pregnancy or in pregnant animals have been located. However, teratogenicity is a potential problem (see below). If high doses of the drug are used in pregnancy, the newborn infants should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol) (417)

This is an injectable glucocorticoid. See below.

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol) (497)

Methylprednisolone is a glucocorticoid given parenterally. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. As with other corticosteroids, the drug was teratogenic, at doses equivalent to the human dose, in mice, rats, and rabbits. If the drug is used in pregnancy, the newborn infant should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Mometasone + formoterol (Dulera) (321 + 841)

Dulera is a combination product of mometasone (corticosteroid) and formoterol (beta2-adrenergic agonist). There is no published human data for Dulera but the molecular weights suggest that the drugs will cross the placenta. Oral doses of formoterol were not teratogenic in animals but were with mometasone. The limited human pregnancy data with formoterol did not suggest a risk of embryo/fetal harm, but there is no human pregnancy data for mometasone.

Montelukast (Singulair) (608)

Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist that is given orally. Although the human data are limited, the drug does not appear to cause harm to the embryo and/or fetus. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits. The manufacturer maintains a pregnancy registry for women exposed to montelukast. Health care professionals are encouraged to report pregnancy exposures to the registry by calling the toll-free number 1-800-986-8999.

Omalizumab (Xolair) (149,000)

Omalizumab is a recombinant DNA–derived humanized immunoglobulin (IgG1k) monoclonal antibody that is administered subcutaneously for patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. In monkeys, the drug did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity. The human pregnancy data is very limited but does not suggest an increased embryo-fetal risk.

Prednisone (Rayos) (358)

The use of oral prednisone appears to represent a small risk to the developing fetus. One of these risks appears to be orofacial clefts. The drug causes birth defects in rats, mice, rabbits, and hamsters. However, the available evidence supports its use to control various maternal diseases, one of which is asthma.
 

Reslizumab (Cinqair) (147,000)

Reslizumab is given intravenously. Even though the molecular weight is high, the drug crosses the placenta during pregnancy. In placebo-controlled studies, anaphylaxis occurred in 0.3% of patients receiving the drug. No adverse effects were observed when the drug was given to pregnant mice and rabbits.

Salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) (416)

Salmeterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that is given as an aerosol or dry powder for oral inhalation. Because the drug acts locally in the lung, plasma levels are very low or undetectable and are a result of swallowed salmeterol. The limited human pregnancy data does not suggest risk of embryo-fetal harm. High oral doses in animals were not teratogenic.

Theophylline (180)

Oral theophylline is a methylxanthine that is indicated for the treatment of symptoms of chronic asthma and other chronic lung diseases. According to ACOG, theophylline is not a preferred asthma therapy but considered an alternative agent. No published reports linking the use of theophylline with congenital defects have been located. However, the drug is teratogenic in mice, rats, and rabbits at doses close to the human dose.

Tiotropium (Spiriva Respimat) (490)

Tiotropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is given by oral inhalation only. No reports describing the use of tiotropium during human pregnancy have been located. The animal data suggest low risk. However, because of its long elimination half-life (about 25 hours), use of tiotropium immediately before the diagnosis of an inadvertent pregnancy would most likely result in the exposure of a portion of organogenesis.

Triamcinolone (Kenalog-40) (435)

Triamcinolone is an inhaled corticosteroid with potency slightly greater than prednisone. Although the systemic use of the drug has a small absolute risk of oral clefts and fetal growth restriction, inhaled triamcinolone does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. The drug is teratogenic when given orally to animals.

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs are excreted into breast milk. Agents with relatively low molecular weights will probably be in milk. However, if the maternal levels are low, the amount in milk will probably be very small, if at all. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if any of these agents, even if they are excreted into milk, will have a harmful effect on a nursing infant.

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

Asthma effects about 10% of pregnant women worldwide. About 10% of these will have severe disease requiring oral corticosteroids. Brief reviews of asthma drugs are shown below. Because asthma can be a serious disease, selective treatment should not be withheld in pregnancy.

The trade names (if available) and molecular weights (rounded to the nearest whole number) are shown in parentheses. Nearly all of these drugs will cross the placenta.
 

Beclomethasone (Beconase AQ) (539)

Either beclomethasone or budesonide was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy, according to a position statement from a joint committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Benralizumab (Fasenra) (150,000)

There is no published human pregnancy data. Based on studies in monkeys, the drug crosses the placenta in the third trimester. It caused no fetal harm in monkeys when given throughout pregnancy. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to the drug during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting mothertobaby.org/Fasenra.

Budesonide (Rhinocort) (431)

Either budesonide or beclomethasone was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy in a position statement from a joint committee of ACOG and ACAAI published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Caffeine (194)

Although the amount of caffeine in commonly used beverages varies widely, caffeine consumption in pregnancy in moderate amounts does not pose a risk to the fetus. When used in moderation, no association with congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, preterm birth, and low birth weight have been proven.

Ciclesonide (Alvesco) (541)

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug produced no defects in rats but caused fetal toxicity in rabbits. Although the risk may be low because it is inhaled, avoiding it in the first trimester should be considered (see dexamethasone).

Cromolyn sodium (490)

Cromolyn was available as a nasal spray and oral solution, but it is no longer available in the United States. It is poorly absorbed into the systemic circulation. Neither the human nor the animal data suggest a risk of embryo-fetal harm.

Dexamethasone (392)

This is a corticosteroid with potency similar to betamethasone. Because large epidemiologic studies have found positive associations between systemic corticosteroids and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts, it is best to avoid this agent in the first trimester. However, when used for the treatment of asthma, other studies have not found a significantly increased risk of maternal or fetal complications. The difference in these outcomes may be related to the systemic concentrations of the drug.

Dyphylline (254) + guaifenesin (198) (Difil-G Forte) (Dilex-G 400) (Dy-G)

This is an OTC liquid drug taken orally. It has not been studied in pregnant animals, and there is no published human pregnancy data. However, these bronchodilator agents probably can be classified as low risk for the embryo and fetus. Dyphylline alone has been removed from the market.

Fluticasone (539) + vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) (775)

Fluticasone is a corticosteroid and vilanterol is a long acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that are given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the two agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug did not cause fetal harm in animals. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination.

Fluticasone (539) + umeclidinium (509) + vilanterol (Trelegy Ellipta) (776)

The combination of fluticasone (glucocorticoid), umeclidinium, and vilanterol (long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists) is given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the three agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. Although the three-drug combination has not been studied in pregnant rats and rabbits, the individual agents did not cause embryo-fetal harm in these species. There is no evidence that these agents, when given by inhalation, will harm the human embryo and/or fetus. No published human pregnancy reports for this fixed combination have been located.

Formoterol + mometasone (Dulera Aerosol) (841 / 521)

This combination is an aerosol product. Formoterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and mometasone is a topical corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination. The molecular weights suggest that both drugs will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In animals given high oral doses, both were teratogenic.

Ipratropium (Atrovent) (430)

Inhaled ipratropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is recommended for asthma in patients not responding adequately to other therapy. It was not teratogenic mice, rats, and rabbits. Although the human pregnancy data is limited, there is no evidence that the drug is hazardous to the fetus. It produces fewer systemic effects then atropine and may have an additive bronchodilatory effect to beta2 agonists.

Isoproterenol (211)

Isoproterenol is a sympathomimetic (bronchodilator) with beta-adrenergic effects that is given intravenously. No reports linking this agent with congenital defects have been located. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits but was in hamsters.

Levalbuterol (Xopenex HFA) (240)

Levalbuterol is the (R)-enantiomer of racemic albuterol. It is given by inhalation. No reports of its use in human pregnancy have been located. However, racemic albuterol is considered compatible in pregnancy, and there is no apparent reason not to classify levalbuterol the same way. The drug, when given orally, is teratogenic in animals. If levalbuterol is used in pregnancy for the treatment of asthma, health care professionals are encouraged to call the toll-free number (1-877-311-8972) for information about patient enrollment in an Organization of Teratology Specialists study.

Mepolizumab (Nucala) (149,000)

Mepolizumab is given by subcutaneous injection. It is not indicated for status asthmaticus. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta in the first half of pregnancy. The drug did not cause defects in monkeys and mice. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women with asthma exposed to Nucala during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting www.mothertobaby.org/asthma.

Metaproterenol (521)

Metaproterenol, a selective beta2-adrenergic agonist, is a respiratory (bronchodilator) that is given orally. Use of this agent in pregnancy has not been linked with congenital defects. However, the drug is teratogenic in animals.

Methylprednisolone (Medrol) (374)

This is an oral glucocorticoid. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. No reports relating to its use in human pregnancy or in pregnant animals have been located. However, teratogenicity is a potential problem (see below). If high doses of the drug are used in pregnancy, the newborn infants should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol) (417)

This is an injectable glucocorticoid. See below.

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol) (497)

Methylprednisolone is a glucocorticoid given parenterally. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. As with other corticosteroids, the drug was teratogenic, at doses equivalent to the human dose, in mice, rats, and rabbits. If the drug is used in pregnancy, the newborn infant should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Mometasone + formoterol (Dulera) (321 + 841)

Dulera is a combination product of mometasone (corticosteroid) and formoterol (beta2-adrenergic agonist). There is no published human data for Dulera but the molecular weights suggest that the drugs will cross the placenta. Oral doses of formoterol were not teratogenic in animals but were with mometasone. The limited human pregnancy data with formoterol did not suggest a risk of embryo/fetal harm, but there is no human pregnancy data for mometasone.

Montelukast (Singulair) (608)

Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist that is given orally. Although the human data are limited, the drug does not appear to cause harm to the embryo and/or fetus. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits. The manufacturer maintains a pregnancy registry for women exposed to montelukast. Health care professionals are encouraged to report pregnancy exposures to the registry by calling the toll-free number 1-800-986-8999.

Omalizumab (Xolair) (149,000)

Omalizumab is a recombinant DNA–derived humanized immunoglobulin (IgG1k) monoclonal antibody that is administered subcutaneously for patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. In monkeys, the drug did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity. The human pregnancy data is very limited but does not suggest an increased embryo-fetal risk.

Prednisone (Rayos) (358)

The use of oral prednisone appears to represent a small risk to the developing fetus. One of these risks appears to be orofacial clefts. The drug causes birth defects in rats, mice, rabbits, and hamsters. However, the available evidence supports its use to control various maternal diseases, one of which is asthma.
 

Reslizumab (Cinqair) (147,000)

Reslizumab is given intravenously. Even though the molecular weight is high, the drug crosses the placenta during pregnancy. In placebo-controlled studies, anaphylaxis occurred in 0.3% of patients receiving the drug. No adverse effects were observed when the drug was given to pregnant mice and rabbits.

Salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) (416)

Salmeterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that is given as an aerosol or dry powder for oral inhalation. Because the drug acts locally in the lung, plasma levels are very low or undetectable and are a result of swallowed salmeterol. The limited human pregnancy data does not suggest risk of embryo-fetal harm. High oral doses in animals were not teratogenic.

Theophylline (180)

Oral theophylline is a methylxanthine that is indicated for the treatment of symptoms of chronic asthma and other chronic lung diseases. According to ACOG, theophylline is not a preferred asthma therapy but considered an alternative agent. No published reports linking the use of theophylline with congenital defects have been located. However, the drug is teratogenic in mice, rats, and rabbits at doses close to the human dose.

Tiotropium (Spiriva Respimat) (490)

Tiotropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is given by oral inhalation only. No reports describing the use of tiotropium during human pregnancy have been located. The animal data suggest low risk. However, because of its long elimination half-life (about 25 hours), use of tiotropium immediately before the diagnosis of an inadvertent pregnancy would most likely result in the exposure of a portion of organogenesis.

Triamcinolone (Kenalog-40) (435)

Triamcinolone is an inhaled corticosteroid with potency slightly greater than prednisone. Although the systemic use of the drug has a small absolute risk of oral clefts and fetal growth restriction, inhaled triamcinolone does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. The drug is teratogenic when given orally to animals.

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs are excreted into breast milk. Agents with relatively low molecular weights will probably be in milk. However, if the maternal levels are low, the amount in milk will probably be very small, if at all. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if any of these agents, even if they are excreted into milk, will have a harmful effect on a nursing infant.

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

Asthma effects about 10% of pregnant women worldwide. About 10% of these will have severe disease requiring oral corticosteroids. Brief reviews of asthma drugs are shown below. Because asthma can be a serious disease, selective treatment should not be withheld in pregnancy.

The trade names (if available) and molecular weights (rounded to the nearest whole number) are shown in parentheses. Nearly all of these drugs will cross the placenta.
 

Beclomethasone (Beconase AQ) (539)

Either beclomethasone or budesonide was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy, according to a position statement from a joint committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Benralizumab (Fasenra) (150,000)

There is no published human pregnancy data. Based on studies in monkeys, the drug crosses the placenta in the third trimester. It caused no fetal harm in monkeys when given throughout pregnancy. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to the drug during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting mothertobaby.org/Fasenra.

Budesonide (Rhinocort) (431)

Either budesonide or beclomethasone was considered the inhaled steroids of choice for use during pregnancy in a position statement from a joint committee of ACOG and ACAAI published in 2000. Although the drug is teratogenic in animals, no human reports associating the use of inhaled beclomethasone with human congenital anomalies have been found.

Caffeine (194)

Although the amount of caffeine in commonly used beverages varies widely, caffeine consumption in pregnancy in moderate amounts does not pose a risk to the fetus. When used in moderation, no association with congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions, preterm birth, and low birth weight have been proven.

Ciclesonide (Alvesco) (541)

Ciclesonide is an inhaled corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug produced no defects in rats but caused fetal toxicity in rabbits. Although the risk may be low because it is inhaled, avoiding it in the first trimester should be considered (see dexamethasone).

Cromolyn sodium (490)

Cromolyn was available as a nasal spray and oral solution, but it is no longer available in the United States. It is poorly absorbed into the systemic circulation. Neither the human nor the animal data suggest a risk of embryo-fetal harm.

Dexamethasone (392)

This is a corticosteroid with potency similar to betamethasone. Because large epidemiologic studies have found positive associations between systemic corticosteroids and nonsyndromic orofacial clefts, it is best to avoid this agent in the first trimester. However, when used for the treatment of asthma, other studies have not found a significantly increased risk of maternal or fetal complications. The difference in these outcomes may be related to the systemic concentrations of the drug.

Dyphylline (254) + guaifenesin (198) (Difil-G Forte) (Dilex-G 400) (Dy-G)

This is an OTC liquid drug taken orally. It has not been studied in pregnant animals, and there is no published human pregnancy data. However, these bronchodilator agents probably can be classified as low risk for the embryo and fetus. Dyphylline alone has been removed from the market.

Fluticasone (539) + vilanterol (Breo Ellipta) (775)

Fluticasone is a corticosteroid and vilanterol is a long acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that are given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the two agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. The drug did not cause fetal harm in animals. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination.

Fluticasone (539) + umeclidinium (509) + vilanterol (Trelegy Ellipta) (776)

The combination of fluticasone (glucocorticoid), umeclidinium, and vilanterol (long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists) is given by inhalation. The molecular weights suggest that the three agents will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. Although the three-drug combination has not been studied in pregnant rats and rabbits, the individual agents did not cause embryo-fetal harm in these species. There is no evidence that these agents, when given by inhalation, will harm the human embryo and/or fetus. No published human pregnancy reports for this fixed combination have been located.

Formoterol + mometasone (Dulera Aerosol) (841 / 521)

This combination is an aerosol product. Formoterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and mometasone is a topical corticosteroid. There is no published human pregnancy data for this fixed combination. The molecular weights suggest that both drugs will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. In animals given high oral doses, both were teratogenic.

Ipratropium (Atrovent) (430)

Inhaled ipratropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is recommended for asthma in patients not responding adequately to other therapy. It was not teratogenic mice, rats, and rabbits. Although the human pregnancy data is limited, there is no evidence that the drug is hazardous to the fetus. It produces fewer systemic effects then atropine and may have an additive bronchodilatory effect to beta2 agonists.

Isoproterenol (211)

Isoproterenol is a sympathomimetic (bronchodilator) with beta-adrenergic effects that is given intravenously. No reports linking this agent with congenital defects have been located. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits but was in hamsters.

Levalbuterol (Xopenex HFA) (240)

Levalbuterol is the (R)-enantiomer of racemic albuterol. It is given by inhalation. No reports of its use in human pregnancy have been located. However, racemic albuterol is considered compatible in pregnancy, and there is no apparent reason not to classify levalbuterol the same way. The drug, when given orally, is teratogenic in animals. If levalbuterol is used in pregnancy for the treatment of asthma, health care professionals are encouraged to call the toll-free number (1-877-311-8972) for information about patient enrollment in an Organization of Teratology Specialists study.

Mepolizumab (Nucala) (149,000)

Mepolizumab is given by subcutaneous injection. It is not indicated for status asthmaticus. There is no published human pregnancy data but the molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta in the first half of pregnancy. The drug did not cause defects in monkeys and mice. There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women with asthma exposed to Nucala during pregnancy. Health care providers can enroll patients or encourage patients to enroll themselves by calling 1-877-311-8972 or visiting www.mothertobaby.org/asthma.

Metaproterenol (521)

Metaproterenol, a selective beta2-adrenergic agonist, is a respiratory (bronchodilator) that is given orally. Use of this agent in pregnancy has not been linked with congenital defects. However, the drug is teratogenic in animals.

Methylprednisolone (Medrol) (374)

This is an oral glucocorticoid. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. No reports relating to its use in human pregnancy or in pregnant animals have been located. However, teratogenicity is a potential problem (see below). If high doses of the drug are used in pregnancy, the newborn infants should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol) (417)

This is an injectable glucocorticoid. See below.

Methylprednisolone sodium succinate (Solu-Medrol) (497)

Methylprednisolone is a glucocorticoid given parenterally. The molecular weight suggests that it will cross the placenta throughout pregnancy. As with other corticosteroids, the drug was teratogenic, at doses equivalent to the human dose, in mice, rats, and rabbits. If the drug is used in pregnancy, the newborn infant should be carefully observed for signs of hypoadrenalism. In addition, all corticosteroids increase calcium excretion.

Mometasone + formoterol (Dulera) (321 + 841)

Dulera is a combination product of mometasone (corticosteroid) and formoterol (beta2-adrenergic agonist). There is no published human data for Dulera but the molecular weights suggest that the drugs will cross the placenta. Oral doses of formoterol were not teratogenic in animals but were with mometasone. The limited human pregnancy data with formoterol did not suggest a risk of embryo/fetal harm, but there is no human pregnancy data for mometasone.

Montelukast (Singulair) (608)

Montelukast is a leukotriene receptor antagonist that is given orally. Although the human data are limited, the drug does not appear to cause harm to the embryo and/or fetus. The drug was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits. The manufacturer maintains a pregnancy registry for women exposed to montelukast. Health care professionals are encouraged to report pregnancy exposures to the registry by calling the toll-free number 1-800-986-8999.

Omalizumab (Xolair) (149,000)

Omalizumab is a recombinant DNA–derived humanized immunoglobulin (IgG1k) monoclonal antibody that is administered subcutaneously for patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma. In monkeys, the drug did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity. The human pregnancy data is very limited but does not suggest an increased embryo-fetal risk.

Prednisone (Rayos) (358)

The use of oral prednisone appears to represent a small risk to the developing fetus. One of these risks appears to be orofacial clefts. The drug causes birth defects in rats, mice, rabbits, and hamsters. However, the available evidence supports its use to control various maternal diseases, one of which is asthma.
 

Reslizumab (Cinqair) (147,000)

Reslizumab is given intravenously. Even though the molecular weight is high, the drug crosses the placenta during pregnancy. In placebo-controlled studies, anaphylaxis occurred in 0.3% of patients receiving the drug. No adverse effects were observed when the drug was given to pregnant mice and rabbits.

Salmeterol (Serevent Diskus) (416)

Salmeterol is a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that is given as an aerosol or dry powder for oral inhalation. Because the drug acts locally in the lung, plasma levels are very low or undetectable and are a result of swallowed salmeterol. The limited human pregnancy data does not suggest risk of embryo-fetal harm. High oral doses in animals were not teratogenic.

Theophylline (180)

Oral theophylline is a methylxanthine that is indicated for the treatment of symptoms of chronic asthma and other chronic lung diseases. According to ACOG, theophylline is not a preferred asthma therapy but considered an alternative agent. No published reports linking the use of theophylline with congenital defects have been located. However, the drug is teratogenic in mice, rats, and rabbits at doses close to the human dose.

Tiotropium (Spiriva Respimat) (490)

Tiotropium, an anticholinergic bronchodilator, is given by oral inhalation only. No reports describing the use of tiotropium during human pregnancy have been located. The animal data suggest low risk. However, because of its long elimination half-life (about 25 hours), use of tiotropium immediately before the diagnosis of an inadvertent pregnancy would most likely result in the exposure of a portion of organogenesis.

Triamcinolone (Kenalog-40) (435)

Triamcinolone is an inhaled corticosteroid with potency slightly greater than prednisone. Although the systemic use of the drug has a small absolute risk of oral clefts and fetal growth restriction, inhaled triamcinolone does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm. The drug is teratogenic when given orally to animals.

Breastfeeding

It is not known if the above drugs are excreted into breast milk. Agents with relatively low molecular weights will probably be in milk. However, if the maternal levels are low, the amount in milk will probably be very small, if at all. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if any of these agents, even if they are excreted into milk, will have a harmful effect on a nursing infant.

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

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

1. Include and integrate pregnant women and lactating women in the clinical research agenda.

2. Increase the quantity, quality, and timeliness of research on safety and efficacy of therapeutic products used by pregnant women and lactating women.

3. Expand the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology and therapeutics.

4. Remove regulatory barriers to research in pregnant women.

5. Create a public awareness campaign to engage the public and health care providers in research on pregnant women and lactating women.

6. Develop and implement evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers on information relevant to research on pregnant women and lactating women.

7. Develop separate programs to study therapeutic products used off patent in pregnant women and lactating women using the National Institute of Health Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) as a model.

8. Reduce liability to facilitate an evidence base for new therapeutic products that may be used by women who are or may become pregnant and by lactating women.

9. Implement a proactive approach to protocol development and study design to include pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

10. Develop programs to drive discovery and development of therapeutics and new therapeutic products for conditions specific to pregnant women and lactating women.

11. Utilize and improve existing resources for data to inform the evidence and provide a foundation for research on pregnant women and lactating women.

12. Leverage established and support new infrastructures/collaborations to perform research in pregnant women and lactating women.

13. Optimize registries for pregnancy and lactation.

14. The Department of Health & Human Services Secretary should consider exercising the authority provided in law to extend the PRGLAC Task Force when its charter expires in March 2019.

15. Establish an Advisory Committee to monitor and report on implementation of recommendations, updating regulations, and guidance, as applicable, regarding the inclusion of pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research.

Source: Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women; Report to Secretary, Health and Human Services, Congress, September 2018

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

I have had friends and colleagues visibly shrink away when I say that my work involves the study of medication safety in pregnancy. “Yikes! I would never let my daughter participate in a clinical study if she was pregnant!” I hear. It’s an interesting response. Understandably protective of a loved one, except that the loved one is an adult woman who presumably can make her own choices. And the response reveals an assumption that medications are tested in all populations before approval for market. Sadly, the response is ill-informed given that pregnant women are still excluded from most if not all clinical research. My work, by the way, is focused on postapproval studies.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

Translating the above response to a larger picture, health care providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers also have their concerns about pregnant women and lactating women participating in clinical research. Along with the patient and her loved ones, all parties’ concerns are valid. However, there is a harsh reality: According to a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, an estimated 50% of U.S. women take one or more prescription medications during pregnancy. Once marketed, therapies are prescribed to pregnant women, knowingly and unknowingly, and without evidence-based knowledge of their safety. If postapproval safety studies are undertaken, decades may pass as data accrue and before results become available. In general, even less is known about the safety of medications in breastmilk.

Without a path forward that includes pregnant women and lactating women in clinical research, we will remain without timely knowledge of medication safety. Further, our understanding of efficacy will be based on clinical studies of nonpregnant women. Recognizing the need for this information, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women (PRGLAC) was convened in 2017 and tasked with determining this path forward.

The PRGLAC was established by the 21st Century Cures Act, a law designed to help speed up medical product development. Managed by the National Institutes of Health, the PRGLAC is made up of representatives of all federal agencies with responsibilities for women’s health and research, as well as clinicians, industry experts, and other experts. The PRGLAC’s work has been conducted in two phases.

In Phase I, PRGLAC was charged with identifying gaps in knowledge and research regarding safe and effective therapies for pregnant women and lactating women. The Task Force conducted four public meetings in 2017 and 2018, and submitted their conclusions to Congress and the Secretary of Health & Human Services in a publicly available report. The report provides 15 specific recommendations, several of which are directly relevant to obstetricians: No. 3 recommends expanding the workforce of clinicians and research investigators with expertise in obstetric and lactation pharmacology, No. 6 recommends the development and implementation of evidence-based communication strategies with health care providers, and No. 13 recommends optimization of registries for pregnancy and lactation. Obstetricians can make a positive contribution to accruing medication safety data by being aware of pregnancy registries and indicating their availability to eligible patients.

In the spring of 2019, the PRGLAC reconvened with a 2-year mandate and a new charge for Phase II: to develop plans for implementing the recommendations laid out in the Phase I report. Four working groups (WGs) were identified to address the recommendations of the report: WG1 Research and Training, WG2 Regulatory, WG3 Communication and Registries, and WG4 Discovery. The four groups have deliberated, and a new report is being finalized. The PRGLAC’s efforts provide a fresh conversation to address long-standing issues to provide evidence-based information for the treatment of pregnant and lactating women. Once available, the final report will be posted on the PRGLAC website.

The recommendations in this report, when implemented, are directly relevant to patient care and clinician training and will provide a path forward for the inclusion of pregnant and lactating women in clinical research or a firm justification for their exclusion.
 

Dr. Hardy is a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology. She also represents the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention and the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists at PRGLAC meetings. Dr. Hardy disclosed she has worked with multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding medication safety studies in pregnancy, most recently Biohaven. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

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

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

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

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.

lechatnoir/E+

Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.

We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.

As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.

If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, the implications of having severe relapse of a mood disorder, for example, such as depression or bipolar disorder during the pandemic, takes on a new context where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.

Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.

Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.¹ There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,² which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.

However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?

I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.

Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.

Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
 

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

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.

2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.

When last I wrote this column, I was preparing for travel to professional meetings in the spring, planning a presentation for an upcoming grand rounds, and readying to host a scientific advisory board meeting as part of a large scientific project we conduct in Center for Women’s Mental Health. We were also awaiting the relocation of several junior faculty and research staff to Boston this spring and summer as we build our team.

JarekJoepera/iStock/Getty Images

It is now obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a passing squall, but rather a persistent gale that has placed our collective sails in the water. It has not capsized the boat, however, thanks in part to the actions of courageous frontline caregivers and first responders who have mobilized in the wake of this recent public health crisis. From doctors, nurses, and hospital staff to grocery store clerks, home health aides, and neighbors checking in on the elderly – to name just a few – a whole crew of members across society have helped buoy our collective ship. Resilience also is required by all of us who are managing the array of feelings brought about by the day-in, day-out challenges of living life with restricted movement and freedom to engage in pre-COVID-19 activities we took for granted. What seemed like a temporary workaround is now becoming the “new normal” for an unknown amount of time looking forward.

For over 3 decades, my colleagues and I have worked with women who suffer from serious psychiatric disorders and whose treatment has required psychiatric medications such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics. The challenge of our work with women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy has been the configuration of the safest ways to navigate treatment on an individual basis for these women across pregnancy and post partum, with continual assessments of how to minimize the risk to fetus from in utero exposure to medications that have been instrumental in the treatment of psychiatric disorders on one hand versus the risks of untreated psychiatric disorder on the other. This work has been the essence of the clinical mission and the cornerstone of the research conducted at the Center for Women’s Mental Health since its inception.

While I have worked shoulder to shoulder with obstetricians for years, my respect for these colleagues during these past weeks has only grown as they have instituted the swiftest protocols to mitigate risk associated with COVID-19 for our pregnant patients, some of whom have tested positive for COVID-19, all in an effort to keep both mother, fetus, and newborn as safe as possible.

For those of us providing mental health services to pregnant women during this time, certain clinical situations have arisen in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which require particular attention and discussion.
 

Planned pregnancy and contraception during the COVID-19 pandemic

Half of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Now more than ever, it is critical that decisions about moving forward with a plan to conceive be deliberate. These considerations range from the existential to the most concrete. For example, during these last weeks, we have consulted on cases where couples on the cusp of attempts to conceive face concerns about COVID-19, hence making more complicated their timeline with respect to actual plans to get pregnant. These are complicated decisions, particularly for women who may be slightly older and at the reproductive age where delaying pregnancy may have an adverse effect on fertility.

A concrete example of how the pandemic has affected fertility is evident as we encounter situations where women may defer starting a prescription oral contraceptive or lapse in its use because they have had difficulty coordinating visits with health care providers and may fear picking up prescriptions from pharmacies. We also have seen that procedures such as IUD placements have been deferred or canceled, or that some patients decline trips to the hospital or clinic to receive this type of service. These new barriers to access of contraception may require more planning at this time so that decisions about family planning are by design and not default during a time as complicated as the current public health crisis.
 

Telemedicine: telepsychiatry and obstetrics virtual visits

While wide-scale use of telemedicine platforms was not the standard day-to-day practice in either obstetrics or psychiatry prior to the pandemic, telepsychiatry has come up to speed within a short number of weeks. At our institution, 85% of outpatient visits are being conducted remotely, with in-person visits being reserved for only urgent or emergent visits. Our inpatient psychiatry service remains a setting where psychiatric patients, regardless of their COVID-19 status, can receive necessary care.

The use of telemedicine and specifically telepsychiatry is critical to mitigate the likelihood of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. On our reproductive psychiatry service, it has actually been an opportunity to engage with patients for comprehensive initial consults about reproductive safety of psychiatric medications currently being taken, or for ongoing consultation and direct patient care during follow-up visits during pregnancy to see that patients are sustaining emotional well-being or have changes for treatment implemented if they are not well. An increased frequency of visits allows us more opportunity to capture any signs of early clinical worsening of symptoms that might have been missed previously using the more traditional in-person setting.

Telepsychiatry and “virtual visits” have allowed us to do real-time, nimble modifications of treatment regimens with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to keep women well and to keep them out of the hospital for psychiatric care as often as possible. It also has facilitated a closer collaboration with our colleagues in obstetrics. In a way, the team of providers, including psychiatrists, obstetrical providers, social workers, and therapists can more easily communicate virtually than has sometimes been the case previously, when day-to-day use of telemedicine and virtual team meetings was less common.
 

Recognition and treatment of anxiety in perinatal patients

Even pregnant women without preexisting anxiety disorders may have heightened anxiety during usual times, and women and their partners cope with this typically in numerous ways including participation in peer-support opportunities, wellness and self-care activities, leveraging support from care providers, and engaging with family. But the previously “typical pregnancy experience” has shifted in the context of COVID-19. Specifically, added concerns of pregnant women about becoming infected, of potential separation from family if they do become ill, or of separation from partners or support systems during labor and delivery (an issue that has been largely resolved in many hospitals), as well as the possibility that a neonate might become ill with exposure to the coronavirus are obviously understandable and real. Such contingencies are unsettling, even for the most settled of our patients. Labor and delivery plans, and plans for outside help from family or others with the baby and older children in the postpartum period, have been upended for many patients.

These are anxious times. The number of nonpharmacologic virtual interventions available to mitigate anxiety are filling email inboxes daily. Curating these options can be a challenge, although several resources are worth noting, such as our department’s page on mental health resources.

During these past weeks, we have seen growing numbers of women for whom the normative anxiety of pregnancy is increasing to the point of causing distress to the level of functional impairment. Many patients for the first time meet criteria for frank anxiety disorders. These patients deserve prompt evaluation by mental health professionals and treatment with evidence-based therapies for anxiety disorders whether nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic so as to mitigate the risk of untreated anxiety on maternal and fetal well-being and also to limit risk for postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety disorders.

Miscarriage and infertility

A 36-year-old patient came to see me in clinic in late January following a miscarriage. She had a history of a previous miscarriage a year before and had an episode of major depression to follow for which she received treatment with an antidepressant and cognitive-behavioral therapy; she also attended a perinatal loss support group. She saw me in early March, anxious to try to conceive but extremely concerned about the risks associated with becoming pregnant at this point in time. Following a lengthy discussion with me and her obstetrician, the patient decided to wait until “the curve flattened” in Boston in terms of new cases of COVID-19, and then start trying to conceive. The case of another patient with a very similar history was presented at our rounds a few weeks ago; she also elected to defer attempts to conceive until life is more settled.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of the impact of COVID-19 on fertility has been for those women with plans to pursue treatment with one of the assisted reproductive technologies. They have been told that professional societies have made recommendations regarding use of assisted reproductive technologies that are not entirely consistent across the country, but where in many places such interventions have been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many women near the end of their reproductive years, delays in trying to conceive either with or without the aid of fertility treatments may indelibly shape their plans to have children.
 

Sustaining emotional well-being across pregnancy

Because most psychiatric disorders are chronic in course, it is often the situation where women are treated to wellness for serious psychiatric disorders, with the goal of maintaining wellness across pregnancy and the post partum. One of the most critical takeaway points from 30 years of working with psychiatrically ill pregnant women is the maxim that keeping women well during pregnancy is simply imperative. Maternal psychiatric well-being during pregnancy is a strong predictor of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, postpartum mental health, and longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes in children. Critically, in the context of the pandemic, keeping women out of psychiatric crises mitigates the necessity of visits to urgent clinical settings such as EDs and psychiatric inpatient units, which can increase the likelihood of exposure to the coronavirus.

Preservation of sleep

Disruption in sleep (duration and quality) can be seen in well over half of women during pregnancy with and without psychiatric disorders, and our experience has been that this has been exacerbated for many women during the COVID-19 crisis. Yet there are very rich data showing that sleep deprivation or sleep dysregulation in women, for example, who suffer from bipolar disorder or major depression can be a strong trigger for psychiatric relapse of underlying illness during pregnancy and the postpartum period.

During a time when normal rhythms of day-to-day life have been shifted – if not frankly disrupted – by swift transitions to remote work, cancellation of school and associated school activities across the country, complaints of insomnia and non-restorative sleep have been exceedingly common. Relevant to all but particularly for pregnant women with histories of psychiatric disorder, attention to sleep hygiene, moderation of caffeine use (if any), and use of any number of biobehavioral interventions to enhance relaxation and modulate stress may be of great value.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been demonstrated to be effective in pregnant women. Fortunately, there are user-friendly options on digital platforms that can be used during the pandemic that may play an important role in sustaining emotional well-being for pregnant women who have frank symptoms of insomnia.
 

Maintenance of ongoing antidepressant treatment during pregnancy among women with histories of mood disorder

Over a decade ago, my colleagues and I wrote about the comparison of outcomes for women with histories of recurrent major depression, demonstrating the value of maintenance treatment with antidepressants, compared with discontinuation of these medications during pregnancy (JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295[5]:499-507). Recently, I was asked if maintenance antidepressant use in women with histories of recurrent depression was still our clinical recommendation. Over the last decade, we have noted that nearly half of women treated with antidepressants, regardless of illness severity, will discontinue their use of these medications prior to or early on in pregnancy given concerns about potential unknown effects of fetal exposure to medications, even medications for which there are robust data supporting reproductive safety regarding risk of congenital malformations. Routine discontinuation of antidepressants prior to or during pregnancy continues, despite the fact that we showed nearly 70% of those women with past histories of depression on maintenance antidepressant treatment relapsed shortly after discontinuing medication.

While we do not dictate the decisions women make about antidepressant use before, during, or after pregnancy, women with the same severity of illness will frequently make different decisions (a good thing) but we are now having very frank discussions about the particular need during a pandemic to avoid the relapse of serious psychiatric disorders. We typically endorse maintenance medication use with all but a very few number of psychotropic medications for which benefit may not outweigh risk to the fetus. However, for women who have decided nonetheless to discontinue antidepressants or other psychotropics during pregnancy despite the known risk of relapse, we strongly advise that they initiate treatment with evidence-based nonpharmacologic intervention such as CBT or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).

As in other areas of medicine, the pandemic is prompting we professionals in psychiatry, and specifically in perinatal psychiatry, to use all of our tools to keep pregnant and postpartum women well. The availability of digital tools to deliver MBCT and CBT has made the use of such interventions particularly viable at a time of social distancing. That being said, for patients with highly recurrent affective disorder with histories of previous recurrence when they stop their antidepressants, we are more strongly recommending serious consideration of maintenance medication treatment.
 

Virtual rounds in reproductive psychiatry and women’s mental health

The use of virtual platforms to connect with both patients and colleagues also has provided new opportunities for interaction with the reproductive psychiatry community as a whole. Peer teaching and peer support has been a critical part of our mission, and we decided 1 month ago to establish Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. This is a free digital platform, held on a weekly basis with our colleagues from across the country, where we discuss cases that come up in our own clinical rounds and also questions that get put forth by our colleagues in the area of reproductive psychiatry as they manage patients during the pandemic.

Changes in the postpartum experience

The last decade has brought a growing appreciation of postpartum depression and the need to screen and treat postpartum psychiatric disorders, such as postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Yet in the era of this pandemic, the postpartum experience is itself is changing. Changes in carefully configured plans for the postpartum period – from family coming and going to mobilizing extra support at home and to now having new moms having to manage families and their other children at home – has been an enormous stressor for many women. Plans to have more elderly parents visit during the acute postpartum period, and the increased concerns about people traveling to and from a home where there is a newborn and the need to quarantine, has made the transition to motherhood much more complicated for all postpartum women, let alone for those postpartum women who have histories of psychiatric disorder.

There is a risk of social isolation for postpartum women even under normal circumstances, and this is profoundly more likely during this pandemic. We are actively working with our postpartum patients and optimizing treatment, brainstorming options in terms of using both virtual and real-time support to the extent that it is safe in order to keep women healthy during such a stressful and critical time.

I am heartened by the efforts on the part of organizations such as Postpartum Support International to make available virtually their resources with respect to community-based support and education for women who feel increasingly isolated during the postpartum period, a time where connectedness is so critical.

Summarily, these have been challenging times, but also times of opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted us to get even more creative as we configure ways to optimize the emotional well-being of our patients who are planning to get pregnant, who are pregnant, or who are post partum.

The current time, while challenging in so many ways and a time of great pain, loss, and grief for far too many, has also provided an opportunity to work even more collaboratively with our colleagues, coming up with new paradigms of treatments as we weather this historic challenge.

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

When last I wrote this column, I was preparing for travel to professional meetings in the spring, planning a presentation for an upcoming grand rounds, and readying to host a scientific advisory board meeting as part of a large scientific project we conduct in Center for Women’s Mental Health. We were also awaiting the relocation of several junior faculty and research staff to Boston this spring and summer as we build our team.

JarekJoepera/iStock/Getty Images

It is now obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a passing squall, but rather a persistent gale that has placed our collective sails in the water. It has not capsized the boat, however, thanks in part to the actions of courageous frontline caregivers and first responders who have mobilized in the wake of this recent public health crisis. From doctors, nurses, and hospital staff to grocery store clerks, home health aides, and neighbors checking in on the elderly – to name just a few – a whole crew of members across society have helped buoy our collective ship. Resilience also is required by all of us who are managing the array of feelings brought about by the day-in, day-out challenges of living life with restricted movement and freedom to engage in pre-COVID-19 activities we took for granted. What seemed like a temporary workaround is now becoming the “new normal” for an unknown amount of time looking forward.

For over 3 decades, my colleagues and I have worked with women who suffer from serious psychiatric disorders and whose treatment has required psychiatric medications such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics. The challenge of our work with women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy has been the configuration of the safest ways to navigate treatment on an individual basis for these women across pregnancy and post partum, with continual assessments of how to minimize the risk to fetus from in utero exposure to medications that have been instrumental in the treatment of psychiatric disorders on one hand versus the risks of untreated psychiatric disorder on the other. This work has been the essence of the clinical mission and the cornerstone of the research conducted at the Center for Women’s Mental Health since its inception.

While I have worked shoulder to shoulder with obstetricians for years, my respect for these colleagues during these past weeks has only grown as they have instituted the swiftest protocols to mitigate risk associated with COVID-19 for our pregnant patients, some of whom have tested positive for COVID-19, all in an effort to keep both mother, fetus, and newborn as safe as possible.

For those of us providing mental health services to pregnant women during this time, certain clinical situations have arisen in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which require particular attention and discussion.
 

Planned pregnancy and contraception during the COVID-19 pandemic

Half of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Now more than ever, it is critical that decisions about moving forward with a plan to conceive be deliberate. These considerations range from the existential to the most concrete. For example, during these last weeks, we have consulted on cases where couples on the cusp of attempts to conceive face concerns about COVID-19, hence making more complicated their timeline with respect to actual plans to get pregnant. These are complicated decisions, particularly for women who may be slightly older and at the reproductive age where delaying pregnancy may have an adverse effect on fertility.

A concrete example of how the pandemic has affected fertility is evident as we encounter situations where women may defer starting a prescription oral contraceptive or lapse in its use because they have had difficulty coordinating visits with health care providers and may fear picking up prescriptions from pharmacies. We also have seen that procedures such as IUD placements have been deferred or canceled, or that some patients decline trips to the hospital or clinic to receive this type of service. These new barriers to access of contraception may require more planning at this time so that decisions about family planning are by design and not default during a time as complicated as the current public health crisis.
 

Telemedicine: telepsychiatry and obstetrics virtual visits

While wide-scale use of telemedicine platforms was not the standard day-to-day practice in either obstetrics or psychiatry prior to the pandemic, telepsychiatry has come up to speed within a short number of weeks. At our institution, 85% of outpatient visits are being conducted remotely, with in-person visits being reserved for only urgent or emergent visits. Our inpatient psychiatry service remains a setting where psychiatric patients, regardless of their COVID-19 status, can receive necessary care.

The use of telemedicine and specifically telepsychiatry is critical to mitigate the likelihood of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. On our reproductive psychiatry service, it has actually been an opportunity to engage with patients for comprehensive initial consults about reproductive safety of psychiatric medications currently being taken, or for ongoing consultation and direct patient care during follow-up visits during pregnancy to see that patients are sustaining emotional well-being or have changes for treatment implemented if they are not well. An increased frequency of visits allows us more opportunity to capture any signs of early clinical worsening of symptoms that might have been missed previously using the more traditional in-person setting.

Telepsychiatry and “virtual visits” have allowed us to do real-time, nimble modifications of treatment regimens with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to keep women well and to keep them out of the hospital for psychiatric care as often as possible. It also has facilitated a closer collaboration with our colleagues in obstetrics. In a way, the team of providers, including psychiatrists, obstetrical providers, social workers, and therapists can more easily communicate virtually than has sometimes been the case previously, when day-to-day use of telemedicine and virtual team meetings was less common.
 

Recognition and treatment of anxiety in perinatal patients

Even pregnant women without preexisting anxiety disorders may have heightened anxiety during usual times, and women and their partners cope with this typically in numerous ways including participation in peer-support opportunities, wellness and self-care activities, leveraging support from care providers, and engaging with family. But the previously “typical pregnancy experience” has shifted in the context of COVID-19. Specifically, added concerns of pregnant women about becoming infected, of potential separation from family if they do become ill, or of separation from partners or support systems during labor and delivery (an issue that has been largely resolved in many hospitals), as well as the possibility that a neonate might become ill with exposure to the coronavirus are obviously understandable and real. Such contingencies are unsettling, even for the most settled of our patients. Labor and delivery plans, and plans for outside help from family or others with the baby and older children in the postpartum period, have been upended for many patients.

These are anxious times. The number of nonpharmacologic virtual interventions available to mitigate anxiety are filling email inboxes daily. Curating these options can be a challenge, although several resources are worth noting, such as our department’s page on mental health resources.

During these past weeks, we have seen growing numbers of women for whom the normative anxiety of pregnancy is increasing to the point of causing distress to the level of functional impairment. Many patients for the first time meet criteria for frank anxiety disorders. These patients deserve prompt evaluation by mental health professionals and treatment with evidence-based therapies for anxiety disorders whether nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic so as to mitigate the risk of untreated anxiety on maternal and fetal well-being and also to limit risk for postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety disorders.

Miscarriage and infertility

A 36-year-old patient came to see me in clinic in late January following a miscarriage. She had a history of a previous miscarriage a year before and had an episode of major depression to follow for which she received treatment with an antidepressant and cognitive-behavioral therapy; she also attended a perinatal loss support group. She saw me in early March, anxious to try to conceive but extremely concerned about the risks associated with becoming pregnant at this point in time. Following a lengthy discussion with me and her obstetrician, the patient decided to wait until “the curve flattened” in Boston in terms of new cases of COVID-19, and then start trying to conceive. The case of another patient with a very similar history was presented at our rounds a few weeks ago; she also elected to defer attempts to conceive until life is more settled.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of the impact of COVID-19 on fertility has been for those women with plans to pursue treatment with one of the assisted reproductive technologies. They have been told that professional societies have made recommendations regarding use of assisted reproductive technologies that are not entirely consistent across the country, but where in many places such interventions have been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many women near the end of their reproductive years, delays in trying to conceive either with or without the aid of fertility treatments may indelibly shape their plans to have children.
 

Sustaining emotional well-being across pregnancy

Because most psychiatric disorders are chronic in course, it is often the situation where women are treated to wellness for serious psychiatric disorders, with the goal of maintaining wellness across pregnancy and the post partum. One of the most critical takeaway points from 30 years of working with psychiatrically ill pregnant women is the maxim that keeping women well during pregnancy is simply imperative. Maternal psychiatric well-being during pregnancy is a strong predictor of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, postpartum mental health, and longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes in children. Critically, in the context of the pandemic, keeping women out of psychiatric crises mitigates the necessity of visits to urgent clinical settings such as EDs and psychiatric inpatient units, which can increase the likelihood of exposure to the coronavirus.

Preservation of sleep

Disruption in sleep (duration and quality) can be seen in well over half of women during pregnancy with and without psychiatric disorders, and our experience has been that this has been exacerbated for many women during the COVID-19 crisis. Yet there are very rich data showing that sleep deprivation or sleep dysregulation in women, for example, who suffer from bipolar disorder or major depression can be a strong trigger for psychiatric relapse of underlying illness during pregnancy and the postpartum period.

During a time when normal rhythms of day-to-day life have been shifted – if not frankly disrupted – by swift transitions to remote work, cancellation of school and associated school activities across the country, complaints of insomnia and non-restorative sleep have been exceedingly common. Relevant to all but particularly for pregnant women with histories of psychiatric disorder, attention to sleep hygiene, moderation of caffeine use (if any), and use of any number of biobehavioral interventions to enhance relaxation and modulate stress may be of great value.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been demonstrated to be effective in pregnant women. Fortunately, there are user-friendly options on digital platforms that can be used during the pandemic that may play an important role in sustaining emotional well-being for pregnant women who have frank symptoms of insomnia.
 

Maintenance of ongoing antidepressant treatment during pregnancy among women with histories of mood disorder

Over a decade ago, my colleagues and I wrote about the comparison of outcomes for women with histories of recurrent major depression, demonstrating the value of maintenance treatment with antidepressants, compared with discontinuation of these medications during pregnancy (JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295[5]:499-507). Recently, I was asked if maintenance antidepressant use in women with histories of recurrent depression was still our clinical recommendation. Over the last decade, we have noted that nearly half of women treated with antidepressants, regardless of illness severity, will discontinue their use of these medications prior to or early on in pregnancy given concerns about potential unknown effects of fetal exposure to medications, even medications for which there are robust data supporting reproductive safety regarding risk of congenital malformations. Routine discontinuation of antidepressants prior to or during pregnancy continues, despite the fact that we showed nearly 70% of those women with past histories of depression on maintenance antidepressant treatment relapsed shortly after discontinuing medication.

While we do not dictate the decisions women make about antidepressant use before, during, or after pregnancy, women with the same severity of illness will frequently make different decisions (a good thing) but we are now having very frank discussions about the particular need during a pandemic to avoid the relapse of serious psychiatric disorders. We typically endorse maintenance medication use with all but a very few number of psychotropic medications for which benefit may not outweigh risk to the fetus. However, for women who have decided nonetheless to discontinue antidepressants or other psychotropics during pregnancy despite the known risk of relapse, we strongly advise that they initiate treatment with evidence-based nonpharmacologic intervention such as CBT or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).

As in other areas of medicine, the pandemic is prompting we professionals in psychiatry, and specifically in perinatal psychiatry, to use all of our tools to keep pregnant and postpartum women well. The availability of digital tools to deliver MBCT and CBT has made the use of such interventions particularly viable at a time of social distancing. That being said, for patients with highly recurrent affective disorder with histories of previous recurrence when they stop their antidepressants, we are more strongly recommending serious consideration of maintenance medication treatment.
 

Virtual rounds in reproductive psychiatry and women’s mental health

The use of virtual platforms to connect with both patients and colleagues also has provided new opportunities for interaction with the reproductive psychiatry community as a whole. Peer teaching and peer support has been a critical part of our mission, and we decided 1 month ago to establish Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. This is a free digital platform, held on a weekly basis with our colleagues from across the country, where we discuss cases that come up in our own clinical rounds and also questions that get put forth by our colleagues in the area of reproductive psychiatry as they manage patients during the pandemic.

Changes in the postpartum experience

The last decade has brought a growing appreciation of postpartum depression and the need to screen and treat postpartum psychiatric disorders, such as postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Yet in the era of this pandemic, the postpartum experience is itself is changing. Changes in carefully configured plans for the postpartum period – from family coming and going to mobilizing extra support at home and to now having new moms having to manage families and their other children at home – has been an enormous stressor for many women. Plans to have more elderly parents visit during the acute postpartum period, and the increased concerns about people traveling to and from a home where there is a newborn and the need to quarantine, has made the transition to motherhood much more complicated for all postpartum women, let alone for those postpartum women who have histories of psychiatric disorder.

There is a risk of social isolation for postpartum women even under normal circumstances, and this is profoundly more likely during this pandemic. We are actively working with our postpartum patients and optimizing treatment, brainstorming options in terms of using both virtual and real-time support to the extent that it is safe in order to keep women healthy during such a stressful and critical time.

I am heartened by the efforts on the part of organizations such as Postpartum Support International to make available virtually their resources with respect to community-based support and education for women who feel increasingly isolated during the postpartum period, a time where connectedness is so critical.

Summarily, these have been challenging times, but also times of opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted us to get even more creative as we configure ways to optimize the emotional well-being of our patients who are planning to get pregnant, who are pregnant, or who are post partum.

The current time, while challenging in so many ways and a time of great pain, loss, and grief for far too many, has also provided an opportunity to work even more collaboratively with our colleagues, coming up with new paradigms of treatments as we weather this historic challenge.

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

When last I wrote this column, I was preparing for travel to professional meetings in the spring, planning a presentation for an upcoming grand rounds, and readying to host a scientific advisory board meeting as part of a large scientific project we conduct in Center for Women’s Mental Health. We were also awaiting the relocation of several junior faculty and research staff to Boston this spring and summer as we build our team.

JarekJoepera/iStock/Getty Images

It is now obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic is not a passing squall, but rather a persistent gale that has placed our collective sails in the water. It has not capsized the boat, however, thanks in part to the actions of courageous frontline caregivers and first responders who have mobilized in the wake of this recent public health crisis. From doctors, nurses, and hospital staff to grocery store clerks, home health aides, and neighbors checking in on the elderly – to name just a few – a whole crew of members across society have helped buoy our collective ship. Resilience also is required by all of us who are managing the array of feelings brought about by the day-in, day-out challenges of living life with restricted movement and freedom to engage in pre-COVID-19 activities we took for granted. What seemed like a temporary workaround is now becoming the “new normal” for an unknown amount of time looking forward.

For over 3 decades, my colleagues and I have worked with women who suffer from serious psychiatric disorders and whose treatment has required psychiatric medications such as antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics. The challenge of our work with women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy has been the configuration of the safest ways to navigate treatment on an individual basis for these women across pregnancy and post partum, with continual assessments of how to minimize the risk to fetus from in utero exposure to medications that have been instrumental in the treatment of psychiatric disorders on one hand versus the risks of untreated psychiatric disorder on the other. This work has been the essence of the clinical mission and the cornerstone of the research conducted at the Center for Women’s Mental Health since its inception.

While I have worked shoulder to shoulder with obstetricians for years, my respect for these colleagues during these past weeks has only grown as they have instituted the swiftest protocols to mitigate risk associated with COVID-19 for our pregnant patients, some of whom have tested positive for COVID-19, all in an effort to keep both mother, fetus, and newborn as safe as possible.

For those of us providing mental health services to pregnant women during this time, certain clinical situations have arisen in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which require particular attention and discussion.
 

Planned pregnancy and contraception during the COVID-19 pandemic

Half of the pregnancies in this country are unplanned. Now more than ever, it is critical that decisions about moving forward with a plan to conceive be deliberate. These considerations range from the existential to the most concrete. For example, during these last weeks, we have consulted on cases where couples on the cusp of attempts to conceive face concerns about COVID-19, hence making more complicated their timeline with respect to actual plans to get pregnant. These are complicated decisions, particularly for women who may be slightly older and at the reproductive age where delaying pregnancy may have an adverse effect on fertility.

A concrete example of how the pandemic has affected fertility is evident as we encounter situations where women may defer starting a prescription oral contraceptive or lapse in its use because they have had difficulty coordinating visits with health care providers and may fear picking up prescriptions from pharmacies. We also have seen that procedures such as IUD placements have been deferred or canceled, or that some patients decline trips to the hospital or clinic to receive this type of service. These new barriers to access of contraception may require more planning at this time so that decisions about family planning are by design and not default during a time as complicated as the current public health crisis.
 

Telemedicine: telepsychiatry and obstetrics virtual visits

While wide-scale use of telemedicine platforms was not the standard day-to-day practice in either obstetrics or psychiatry prior to the pandemic, telepsychiatry has come up to speed within a short number of weeks. At our institution, 85% of outpatient visits are being conducted remotely, with in-person visits being reserved for only urgent or emergent visits. Our inpatient psychiatry service remains a setting where psychiatric patients, regardless of their COVID-19 status, can receive necessary care.

The use of telemedicine and specifically telepsychiatry is critical to mitigate the likelihood of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. On our reproductive psychiatry service, it has actually been an opportunity to engage with patients for comprehensive initial consults about reproductive safety of psychiatric medications currently being taken, or for ongoing consultation and direct patient care during follow-up visits during pregnancy to see that patients are sustaining emotional well-being or have changes for treatment implemented if they are not well. An increased frequency of visits allows us more opportunity to capture any signs of early clinical worsening of symptoms that might have been missed previously using the more traditional in-person setting.

Telepsychiatry and “virtual visits” have allowed us to do real-time, nimble modifications of treatment regimens with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to keep women well and to keep them out of the hospital for psychiatric care as often as possible. It also has facilitated a closer collaboration with our colleagues in obstetrics. In a way, the team of providers, including psychiatrists, obstetrical providers, social workers, and therapists can more easily communicate virtually than has sometimes been the case previously, when day-to-day use of telemedicine and virtual team meetings was less common.
 

Recognition and treatment of anxiety in perinatal patients

Even pregnant women without preexisting anxiety disorders may have heightened anxiety during usual times, and women and their partners cope with this typically in numerous ways including participation in peer-support opportunities, wellness and self-care activities, leveraging support from care providers, and engaging with family. But the previously “typical pregnancy experience” has shifted in the context of COVID-19. Specifically, added concerns of pregnant women about becoming infected, of potential separation from family if they do become ill, or of separation from partners or support systems during labor and delivery (an issue that has been largely resolved in many hospitals), as well as the possibility that a neonate might become ill with exposure to the coronavirus are obviously understandable and real. Such contingencies are unsettling, even for the most settled of our patients. Labor and delivery plans, and plans for outside help from family or others with the baby and older children in the postpartum period, have been upended for many patients.

These are anxious times. The number of nonpharmacologic virtual interventions available to mitigate anxiety are filling email inboxes daily. Curating these options can be a challenge, although several resources are worth noting, such as our department’s page on mental health resources.

During these past weeks, we have seen growing numbers of women for whom the normative anxiety of pregnancy is increasing to the point of causing distress to the level of functional impairment. Many patients for the first time meet criteria for frank anxiety disorders. These patients deserve prompt evaluation by mental health professionals and treatment with evidence-based therapies for anxiety disorders whether nonpharmacologic or pharmacologic so as to mitigate the risk of untreated anxiety on maternal and fetal well-being and also to limit risk for postpartum depression and postpartum anxiety disorders.

Miscarriage and infertility

A 36-year-old patient came to see me in clinic in late January following a miscarriage. She had a history of a previous miscarriage a year before and had an episode of major depression to follow for which she received treatment with an antidepressant and cognitive-behavioral therapy; she also attended a perinatal loss support group. She saw me in early March, anxious to try to conceive but extremely concerned about the risks associated with becoming pregnant at this point in time. Following a lengthy discussion with me and her obstetrician, the patient decided to wait until “the curve flattened” in Boston in terms of new cases of COVID-19, and then start trying to conceive. The case of another patient with a very similar history was presented at our rounds a few weeks ago; she also elected to defer attempts to conceive until life is more settled.

Perhaps one of the most dramatic examples of the impact of COVID-19 on fertility has been for those women with plans to pursue treatment with one of the assisted reproductive technologies. They have been told that professional societies have made recommendations regarding use of assisted reproductive technologies that are not entirely consistent across the country, but where in many places such interventions have been suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many women near the end of their reproductive years, delays in trying to conceive either with or without the aid of fertility treatments may indelibly shape their plans to have children.
 

Sustaining emotional well-being across pregnancy

Because most psychiatric disorders are chronic in course, it is often the situation where women are treated to wellness for serious psychiatric disorders, with the goal of maintaining wellness across pregnancy and the post partum. One of the most critical takeaway points from 30 years of working with psychiatrically ill pregnant women is the maxim that keeping women well during pregnancy is simply imperative. Maternal psychiatric well-being during pregnancy is a strong predictor of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, postpartum mental health, and longer-term neurobehavioral outcomes in children. Critically, in the context of the pandemic, keeping women out of psychiatric crises mitigates the necessity of visits to urgent clinical settings such as EDs and psychiatric inpatient units, which can increase the likelihood of exposure to the coronavirus.

Preservation of sleep

Disruption in sleep (duration and quality) can be seen in well over half of women during pregnancy with and without psychiatric disorders, and our experience has been that this has been exacerbated for many women during the COVID-19 crisis. Yet there are very rich data showing that sleep deprivation or sleep dysregulation in women, for example, who suffer from bipolar disorder or major depression can be a strong trigger for psychiatric relapse of underlying illness during pregnancy and the postpartum period.

During a time when normal rhythms of day-to-day life have been shifted – if not frankly disrupted – by swift transitions to remote work, cancellation of school and associated school activities across the country, complaints of insomnia and non-restorative sleep have been exceedingly common. Relevant to all but particularly for pregnant women with histories of psychiatric disorder, attention to sleep hygiene, moderation of caffeine use (if any), and use of any number of biobehavioral interventions to enhance relaxation and modulate stress may be of great value.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) has been demonstrated to be effective in pregnant women. Fortunately, there are user-friendly options on digital platforms that can be used during the pandemic that may play an important role in sustaining emotional well-being for pregnant women who have frank symptoms of insomnia.
 

Maintenance of ongoing antidepressant treatment during pregnancy among women with histories of mood disorder

Over a decade ago, my colleagues and I wrote about the comparison of outcomes for women with histories of recurrent major depression, demonstrating the value of maintenance treatment with antidepressants, compared with discontinuation of these medications during pregnancy (JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295[5]:499-507). Recently, I was asked if maintenance antidepressant use in women with histories of recurrent depression was still our clinical recommendation. Over the last decade, we have noted that nearly half of women treated with antidepressants, regardless of illness severity, will discontinue their use of these medications prior to or early on in pregnancy given concerns about potential unknown effects of fetal exposure to medications, even medications for which there are robust data supporting reproductive safety regarding risk of congenital malformations. Routine discontinuation of antidepressants prior to or during pregnancy continues, despite the fact that we showed nearly 70% of those women with past histories of depression on maintenance antidepressant treatment relapsed shortly after discontinuing medication.

While we do not dictate the decisions women make about antidepressant use before, during, or after pregnancy, women with the same severity of illness will frequently make different decisions (a good thing) but we are now having very frank discussions about the particular need during a pandemic to avoid the relapse of serious psychiatric disorders. We typically endorse maintenance medication use with all but a very few number of psychotropic medications for which benefit may not outweigh risk to the fetus. However, for women who have decided nonetheless to discontinue antidepressants or other psychotropics during pregnancy despite the known risk of relapse, we strongly advise that they initiate treatment with evidence-based nonpharmacologic intervention such as CBT or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).

As in other areas of medicine, the pandemic is prompting we professionals in psychiatry, and specifically in perinatal psychiatry, to use all of our tools to keep pregnant and postpartum women well. The availability of digital tools to deliver MBCT and CBT has made the use of such interventions particularly viable at a time of social distancing. That being said, for patients with highly recurrent affective disorder with histories of previous recurrence when they stop their antidepressants, we are more strongly recommending serious consideration of maintenance medication treatment.
 

Virtual rounds in reproductive psychiatry and women’s mental health

The use of virtual platforms to connect with both patients and colleagues also has provided new opportunities for interaction with the reproductive psychiatry community as a whole. Peer teaching and peer support has been a critical part of our mission, and we decided 1 month ago to establish Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. This is a free digital platform, held on a weekly basis with our colleagues from across the country, where we discuss cases that come up in our own clinical rounds and also questions that get put forth by our colleagues in the area of reproductive psychiatry as they manage patients during the pandemic.

Changes in the postpartum experience

The last decade has brought a growing appreciation of postpartum depression and the need to screen and treat postpartum psychiatric disorders, such as postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. Yet in the era of this pandemic, the postpartum experience is itself is changing. Changes in carefully configured plans for the postpartum period – from family coming and going to mobilizing extra support at home and to now having new moms having to manage families and their other children at home – has been an enormous stressor for many women. Plans to have more elderly parents visit during the acute postpartum period, and the increased concerns about people traveling to and from a home where there is a newborn and the need to quarantine, has made the transition to motherhood much more complicated for all postpartum women, let alone for those postpartum women who have histories of psychiatric disorder.

There is a risk of social isolation for postpartum women even under normal circumstances, and this is profoundly more likely during this pandemic. We are actively working with our postpartum patients and optimizing treatment, brainstorming options in terms of using both virtual and real-time support to the extent that it is safe in order to keep women healthy during such a stressful and critical time.

I am heartened by the efforts on the part of organizations such as Postpartum Support International to make available virtually their resources with respect to community-based support and education for women who feel increasingly isolated during the postpartum period, a time where connectedness is so critical.

Summarily, these have been challenging times, but also times of opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted us to get even more creative as we configure ways to optimize the emotional well-being of our patients who are planning to get pregnant, who are pregnant, or who are post partum.

The current time, while challenging in so many ways and a time of great pain, loss, and grief for far too many, has also provided an opportunity to work even more collaboratively with our colleagues, coming up with new paradigms of treatments as we weather this historic challenge.

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

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved 42 drugs, 6 of which will not be discussed here because of space limitations: recarbrio, a three-drug combination, containing imipenem, cilastatin, and relebactam; polatuzumab (Polivy) combined with bendamustine and a rituximab product; pretomanid combined with bedaquiline and linezolid; romosozumab (Evenity) for postmenopausal women; and alpelisib (Piqray) for postmenopausal women. In addition, darolutamide (Nubeqa) will not be included because it is indicated for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. The remaining 36 agents are listed alphabetically below with the trade names in parentheses.

PhotoDisk

The molecular weights (if available), rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses. As with nearly all drugs, avoiding these agents in pregnancy is the best choice.

Air polymer-type a intrauterine foam (ExEm Foam), an ultrasound contrast agent, is indicated for sonohysterosalpingography to assess fallopian tube patency in women with known or suspected infertility. Animal studies have not been conducted, and the agent is contraindicated in pregnancy.

Afamelanotide implant (Scenesse) (1,647) is a melanocortin 1 receptor agonist that is indicated to increase pain-free light exposure in adult patients with a history of phototoxic reactions from erythropoietic protoporphyria. The drug caused no embryofetal toxicity in two species of rats. The molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta, at least early in pregnancy.

Alpelisib (Piqray) (441) is a kinase inhibitor that is combined with fulvestrant for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in women and men. The molecular weight suggests that it can cross the human placenta. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Bremelanotide (Vyleesi) (1,025) is indicated for the treatment of premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual disorder. The drug caused fetal harm in dogs and mice. If a pregnant woman is exposed to the drug, health care providers are encouraged to call the VYLEESI Pregnancy Exposure Registry at 877-411-2510.

Brolucizumab (Beovu) (26,000) is a human vascular endothelial growth factor that is indicated for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. In animals, it caused malformations, embryofetal resorption, and decreased fetal weight. Other adverse effects were follicular development, corpus luteum function, and fertility.

Caplacizumab (Cablivi) (28,000) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy. If used in pregnancy, there is a risk of hemorrhage in the mother and fetus. In guinea pigs given intramuscular doses of the drug, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Cefiderocol (Fetroja) (3,044) is an IV cephalosporin antibiotic indicated for the treatment of urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis. The manufacturer states that it should be used in patients 18 years of age or older who have limited or no alternative treatment options. Consistent with other cephalosporins, no developmental adverse effects were observed in rats and mice.

Cenobamate (Xcopri) (268) is indicated for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults. In pregnant animals given the drug, there was increased embryo-fetal mortality, decreased fetal and offspring body weight, and neurobehavioral and reproductive impairment in offspring. If a pregnant woman receives this drug, encourage her to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling the toll-free number 1-888-233-2334.

Crizanlizumab (Adakveo) (146,000) is indicated to reduce the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises in patients with sickle cell disease. In monkeys given doses slightly higher than those given to humans, there was increased fetal loss (abortions/stillbirths).

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek) (561) is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of cancer. The drug was teratogenic in rats. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Erdafitinib (Balversa) (447), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In rats given doses during organogenesis with maternal exposures less than human exposures, the drug was teratogenic and caused embryofetal death. The manufacturer states that women of reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 1 month after the last dose. The same advice was provided for male patients with female partners of reproductive potential. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fedratinib (Inrebic) (616), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary or secondary myelofibrosis. The drug was teratogenic in rats when doses that were about 0.1 times the human exposure based on AUC (area under the curve) at the recommended daily dose during organogenesis. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fluorodopa f18 (214) is a radioactive diagnostic agent. It is indicated for use in positron emission tomography to visualize dopaminergic nerve terminals in the striatum for evaluation of adult patients with suspected parkinsonian syndromes. The potential for adverse pregnant outcomes is based on the radiation dose and the gestational timing of exposure.

Givosiran sodium (Givlaari) (17,2460) is an aminolevulinate synthase 1-directed small interfering RNA given subcutaneously. It is indicated for the treatment of adults with acute hepatic porphyria. Doses less than 10 times the human dose in rats and rabbits produced maternal toxicity. In rats there was increased postimplantation loss, and in rats there was skeletal variation (incomplete ossification of pubes).

Golodirsen (Vyondys 53) (8,647) is indicated for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy given intravenously. There are no human or animal data available to assess the use of this drug during pregnancy.

Istradefylline (Nourianz) (384) is an adenosine receptor antagonist given orally. It is indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing “off” episodes. In pregnant rats and rabbits, the drug was related to teratogenicity, embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and growth deficits at clinically relevant exposures.

Lasmiditan (Reyvow) (436), a serotonin receptor agonist, is indicated for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. In animals, the drug caused increased incidences of fetal defects, increased embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and decreased fetal body weight at maternal exposures less than (rabbits) or greater than (rat) those observed clinically.

Lefamulin (Xenleta) (568) is an antibacterial agent available for oral and IV administration. They are indicated for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. The drug was teratogenic in rats at systemic exposures lower than those in humans, an increased incidence of post-implantation fetal loss and stillbirths, and decreased fetal body weights and ossification. There was also an apparent delay in sexual maturation in rats.

Luspatercept (Reblozyl) (76,000) is given subcutaneously for the treatment of anemia in patients with beta thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions. In rats and rabbits, the drug cause increased embryo-fetal mortality, alteration to growth, and structural defects at exposures (based on AUC) that were about 13 times (rats) and 18 times (rabbits) the maximum recommended human dose.

Pexidartinib (Turalio) (454) is an oral kinase inhibitor that is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable with surgery. In rats and rabbits, the drug caused malformations, increased post-implantation loss, and abortion at exposures nearly equal to the human exposure. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Pitolisant HCl (Wakix) (296) is an histamine-3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist indicated for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy. The drug has caused maternal and embryofetal toxicity in rats and rabbits at doses greater than and equal to 13 times and greater than 4 times the maximum human dose, respectively. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry that patients can contact at 1-800-833-7460.

Prabotulinum toxin A (Jeuveau) (900,000) is an acetylcholine release inhibitor and a neuromuscular blocking agent indicated for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity. The drug caused no adverse embryo-fetal in rats with doses up to 12 times the human dose.

Risankizumab-rzaa (Skyrizi) (molecular weight unknown), an interleukin-23 antagonist, is used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In pregnant monkeys, doses that were 20 times the maximum human dose increased fetal/infant loss.

Selinexor (Xpovio) (443) is an oral nuclear export inhibitor given in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory myeloma. At doses lower than those used clinically, the drug caused structural abnormalities and alterations to growth in fetal rats.

Siponimod (Mayzent) (1,149) is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator. It is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. At low doses, the drug caused embryotoxicity and fetotoxicity in rats and rabbits including embryofetal deaths and abortions. The drug was teratogenic in both species.

Solriamfetol (Sunosi) (231) is an oral dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that is indicated to improve wakefulness in adult patients with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. The drug caused maternal and fetal toxicities in rats and rabbits and was teratogenic. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry to monitor pregnancy outcomes. Health care providers or patients can enroll in the program by calling 1-877-283-6220 or contacting the company.

Tafamidis meglumine (Vyndaqel) (503) and tafamidis (Vyndamax) (308) are indicated for the treatment of the cardiomyopathy of wild type or hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis to reduce cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. In rabbits and rats, use of the drugs during pregnancy caused birth defects, embryo-fetal mortality, and fetal body weight reduction. Limited available data with Vyndaqel use in human pregnancy at a dose of 20 mg/day have not identified any drug-associated risks for major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes (see package insert).

Tenapanor (Ibsrela) (1,218) is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. The drug is minimally absorbed systemically, with plasma concentrations below the limit of quantification. No adverse maternal or fetal outcomes in rats or rabbits were observed. As reported by the manufacturer, in a small number of pregnant women, no drug-induced adverse maternal or fetal outcomes were identified.

Triclabendazole (Egaten) (360), an oral anthelmintic, is indicated for the treatment of fascioliasis. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Trifarotene (Aklief) (460) cream is a retinoid that is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Animal data was related to oral retinoids and it not applicable to this agent. The manufacturer reported that available data from the use of the cream in pregnant women have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) (389) is an oral Janus inhibitor. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. The drug caused increases in fetal malformations when given to rats and rabbits during organogenesis.

Voxelotor (Oxbryta) (337) is an oral hemoglobin S polymerization inhibitor indicated for the treatment of sickle cell disease. In rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) (472), an oral kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma. The drug caused embryofetal toxicity in pregnant rats, including malformations. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Breastfeeding

Brexanolone (Zulresso) (319) is indicated for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is given as a continuous IV infusion over 60 hours. The drug, at exposures close to those seen in humans, did not cause structural defects in rabbits and rats, but did cause fetal toxicity. Because patients are at risk of excessive sedation or sudden loss of consciousness when receiving the drug, it is only available through a restricted program called the ZULRESSO REMS. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by calling the National Pregnancy Registry for Antidepressants at 844-405-6185. To obtain a list of health care facilities enrolled in the program call 844-472-4379.

Nearly all of the above drugs will cross into a woman’s colostrum during the first 48 hours post partum. These amounts should be very small, but not breastfeeding is the best choice.
 

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

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved 42 drugs, 6 of which will not be discussed here because of space limitations: recarbrio, a three-drug combination, containing imipenem, cilastatin, and relebactam; polatuzumab (Polivy) combined with bendamustine and a rituximab product; pretomanid combined with bedaquiline and linezolid; romosozumab (Evenity) for postmenopausal women; and alpelisib (Piqray) for postmenopausal women. In addition, darolutamide (Nubeqa) will not be included because it is indicated for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. The remaining 36 agents are listed alphabetically below with the trade names in parentheses.

PhotoDisk

The molecular weights (if available), rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses. As with nearly all drugs, avoiding these agents in pregnancy is the best choice.

Air polymer-type a intrauterine foam (ExEm Foam), an ultrasound contrast agent, is indicated for sonohysterosalpingography to assess fallopian tube patency in women with known or suspected infertility. Animal studies have not been conducted, and the agent is contraindicated in pregnancy.

Afamelanotide implant (Scenesse) (1,647) is a melanocortin 1 receptor agonist that is indicated to increase pain-free light exposure in adult patients with a history of phototoxic reactions from erythropoietic protoporphyria. The drug caused no embryofetal toxicity in two species of rats. The molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta, at least early in pregnancy.

Alpelisib (Piqray) (441) is a kinase inhibitor that is combined with fulvestrant for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in women and men. The molecular weight suggests that it can cross the human placenta. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Bremelanotide (Vyleesi) (1,025) is indicated for the treatment of premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual disorder. The drug caused fetal harm in dogs and mice. If a pregnant woman is exposed to the drug, health care providers are encouraged to call the VYLEESI Pregnancy Exposure Registry at 877-411-2510.

Brolucizumab (Beovu) (26,000) is a human vascular endothelial growth factor that is indicated for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. In animals, it caused malformations, embryofetal resorption, and decreased fetal weight. Other adverse effects were follicular development, corpus luteum function, and fertility.

Caplacizumab (Cablivi) (28,000) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy. If used in pregnancy, there is a risk of hemorrhage in the mother and fetus. In guinea pigs given intramuscular doses of the drug, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Cefiderocol (Fetroja) (3,044) is an IV cephalosporin antibiotic indicated for the treatment of urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis. The manufacturer states that it should be used in patients 18 years of age or older who have limited or no alternative treatment options. Consistent with other cephalosporins, no developmental adverse effects were observed in rats and mice.

Cenobamate (Xcopri) (268) is indicated for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults. In pregnant animals given the drug, there was increased embryo-fetal mortality, decreased fetal and offspring body weight, and neurobehavioral and reproductive impairment in offspring. If a pregnant woman receives this drug, encourage her to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling the toll-free number 1-888-233-2334.

Crizanlizumab (Adakveo) (146,000) is indicated to reduce the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises in patients with sickle cell disease. In monkeys given doses slightly higher than those given to humans, there was increased fetal loss (abortions/stillbirths).

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek) (561) is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of cancer. The drug was teratogenic in rats. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Erdafitinib (Balversa) (447), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In rats given doses during organogenesis with maternal exposures less than human exposures, the drug was teratogenic and caused embryofetal death. The manufacturer states that women of reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 1 month after the last dose. The same advice was provided for male patients with female partners of reproductive potential. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fedratinib (Inrebic) (616), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary or secondary myelofibrosis. The drug was teratogenic in rats when doses that were about 0.1 times the human exposure based on AUC (area under the curve) at the recommended daily dose during organogenesis. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fluorodopa f18 (214) is a radioactive diagnostic agent. It is indicated for use in positron emission tomography to visualize dopaminergic nerve terminals in the striatum for evaluation of adult patients with suspected parkinsonian syndromes. The potential for adverse pregnant outcomes is based on the radiation dose and the gestational timing of exposure.

Givosiran sodium (Givlaari) (17,2460) is an aminolevulinate synthase 1-directed small interfering RNA given subcutaneously. It is indicated for the treatment of adults with acute hepatic porphyria. Doses less than 10 times the human dose in rats and rabbits produced maternal toxicity. In rats there was increased postimplantation loss, and in rats there was skeletal variation (incomplete ossification of pubes).

Golodirsen (Vyondys 53) (8,647) is indicated for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy given intravenously. There are no human or animal data available to assess the use of this drug during pregnancy.

Istradefylline (Nourianz) (384) is an adenosine receptor antagonist given orally. It is indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing “off” episodes. In pregnant rats and rabbits, the drug was related to teratogenicity, embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and growth deficits at clinically relevant exposures.

Lasmiditan (Reyvow) (436), a serotonin receptor agonist, is indicated for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. In animals, the drug caused increased incidences of fetal defects, increased embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and decreased fetal body weight at maternal exposures less than (rabbits) or greater than (rat) those observed clinically.

Lefamulin (Xenleta) (568) is an antibacterial agent available for oral and IV administration. They are indicated for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. The drug was teratogenic in rats at systemic exposures lower than those in humans, an increased incidence of post-implantation fetal loss and stillbirths, and decreased fetal body weights and ossification. There was also an apparent delay in sexual maturation in rats.

Luspatercept (Reblozyl) (76,000) is given subcutaneously for the treatment of anemia in patients with beta thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions. In rats and rabbits, the drug cause increased embryo-fetal mortality, alteration to growth, and structural defects at exposures (based on AUC) that were about 13 times (rats) and 18 times (rabbits) the maximum recommended human dose.

Pexidartinib (Turalio) (454) is an oral kinase inhibitor that is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable with surgery. In rats and rabbits, the drug caused malformations, increased post-implantation loss, and abortion at exposures nearly equal to the human exposure. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Pitolisant HCl (Wakix) (296) is an histamine-3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist indicated for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy. The drug has caused maternal and embryofetal toxicity in rats and rabbits at doses greater than and equal to 13 times and greater than 4 times the maximum human dose, respectively. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry that patients can contact at 1-800-833-7460.

Prabotulinum toxin A (Jeuveau) (900,000) is an acetylcholine release inhibitor and a neuromuscular blocking agent indicated for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity. The drug caused no adverse embryo-fetal in rats with doses up to 12 times the human dose.

Risankizumab-rzaa (Skyrizi) (molecular weight unknown), an interleukin-23 antagonist, is used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In pregnant monkeys, doses that were 20 times the maximum human dose increased fetal/infant loss.

Selinexor (Xpovio) (443) is an oral nuclear export inhibitor given in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory myeloma. At doses lower than those used clinically, the drug caused structural abnormalities and alterations to growth in fetal rats.

Siponimod (Mayzent) (1,149) is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator. It is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. At low doses, the drug caused embryotoxicity and fetotoxicity in rats and rabbits including embryofetal deaths and abortions. The drug was teratogenic in both species.

Solriamfetol (Sunosi) (231) is an oral dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that is indicated to improve wakefulness in adult patients with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. The drug caused maternal and fetal toxicities in rats and rabbits and was teratogenic. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry to monitor pregnancy outcomes. Health care providers or patients can enroll in the program by calling 1-877-283-6220 or contacting the company.

Tafamidis meglumine (Vyndaqel) (503) and tafamidis (Vyndamax) (308) are indicated for the treatment of the cardiomyopathy of wild type or hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis to reduce cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. In rabbits and rats, use of the drugs during pregnancy caused birth defects, embryo-fetal mortality, and fetal body weight reduction. Limited available data with Vyndaqel use in human pregnancy at a dose of 20 mg/day have not identified any drug-associated risks for major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes (see package insert).

Tenapanor (Ibsrela) (1,218) is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. The drug is minimally absorbed systemically, with plasma concentrations below the limit of quantification. No adverse maternal or fetal outcomes in rats or rabbits were observed. As reported by the manufacturer, in a small number of pregnant women, no drug-induced adverse maternal or fetal outcomes were identified.

Triclabendazole (Egaten) (360), an oral anthelmintic, is indicated for the treatment of fascioliasis. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Trifarotene (Aklief) (460) cream is a retinoid that is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Animal data was related to oral retinoids and it not applicable to this agent. The manufacturer reported that available data from the use of the cream in pregnant women have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) (389) is an oral Janus inhibitor. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. The drug caused increases in fetal malformations when given to rats and rabbits during organogenesis.

Voxelotor (Oxbryta) (337) is an oral hemoglobin S polymerization inhibitor indicated for the treatment of sickle cell disease. In rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) (472), an oral kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma. The drug caused embryofetal toxicity in pregnant rats, including malformations. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Breastfeeding

Brexanolone (Zulresso) (319) is indicated for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is given as a continuous IV infusion over 60 hours. The drug, at exposures close to those seen in humans, did not cause structural defects in rabbits and rats, but did cause fetal toxicity. Because patients are at risk of excessive sedation or sudden loss of consciousness when receiving the drug, it is only available through a restricted program called the ZULRESSO REMS. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by calling the National Pregnancy Registry for Antidepressants at 844-405-6185. To obtain a list of health care facilities enrolled in the program call 844-472-4379.

Nearly all of the above drugs will cross into a woman’s colostrum during the first 48 hours post partum. These amounts should be very small, but not breastfeeding is the best choice.
 

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

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved 42 drugs, 6 of which will not be discussed here because of space limitations: recarbrio, a three-drug combination, containing imipenem, cilastatin, and relebactam; polatuzumab (Polivy) combined with bendamustine and a rituximab product; pretomanid combined with bedaquiline and linezolid; romosozumab (Evenity) for postmenopausal women; and alpelisib (Piqray) for postmenopausal women. In addition, darolutamide (Nubeqa) will not be included because it is indicated for the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. The remaining 36 agents are listed alphabetically below with the trade names in parentheses.

PhotoDisk

The molecular weights (if available), rounded to the nearest whole number, are shown in parentheses. As with nearly all drugs, avoiding these agents in pregnancy is the best choice.

Air polymer-type a intrauterine foam (ExEm Foam), an ultrasound contrast agent, is indicated for sonohysterosalpingography to assess fallopian tube patency in women with known or suspected infertility. Animal studies have not been conducted, and the agent is contraindicated in pregnancy.

Afamelanotide implant (Scenesse) (1,647) is a melanocortin 1 receptor agonist that is indicated to increase pain-free light exposure in adult patients with a history of phototoxic reactions from erythropoietic protoporphyria. The drug caused no embryofetal toxicity in two species of rats. The molecular weight suggests that it will not cross the placenta, at least early in pregnancy.

Alpelisib (Piqray) (441) is a kinase inhibitor that is combined with fulvestrant for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in women and men. The molecular weight suggests that it can cross the human placenta. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Bremelanotide (Vyleesi) (1,025) is indicated for the treatment of premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual disorder. The drug caused fetal harm in dogs and mice. If a pregnant woman is exposed to the drug, health care providers are encouraged to call the VYLEESI Pregnancy Exposure Registry at 877-411-2510.

Brolucizumab (Beovu) (26,000) is a human vascular endothelial growth factor that is indicated for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. In animals, it caused malformations, embryofetal resorption, and decreased fetal weight. Other adverse effects were follicular development, corpus luteum function, and fertility.

Caplacizumab (Cablivi) (28,000) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, in combination with plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapy. If used in pregnancy, there is a risk of hemorrhage in the mother and fetus. In guinea pigs given intramuscular doses of the drug, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Cefiderocol (Fetroja) (3,044) is an IV cephalosporin antibiotic indicated for the treatment of urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis. The manufacturer states that it should be used in patients 18 years of age or older who have limited or no alternative treatment options. Consistent with other cephalosporins, no developmental adverse effects were observed in rats and mice.

Cenobamate (Xcopri) (268) is indicated for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in adults. In pregnant animals given the drug, there was increased embryo-fetal mortality, decreased fetal and offspring body weight, and neurobehavioral and reproductive impairment in offspring. If a pregnant woman receives this drug, encourage her to enroll in the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry by calling the toll-free number 1-888-233-2334.

Crizanlizumab (Adakveo) (146,000) is indicated to reduce the frequency of vaso-occlusive crises in patients with sickle cell disease. In monkeys given doses slightly higher than those given to humans, there was increased fetal loss (abortions/stillbirths).

Entrectinib (Rozlytrek) (561) is a kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of cancer. The drug was teratogenic in rats. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Erdafitinib (Balversa) (447), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In rats given doses during organogenesis with maternal exposures less than human exposures, the drug was teratogenic and caused embryofetal death. The manufacturer states that women of reproductive potential should use effective contraception during treatment and for 1 month after the last dose. The same advice was provided for male patients with female partners of reproductive potential. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fedratinib (Inrebic) (616), a kinase inhibitor, is indicated for patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary or secondary myelofibrosis. The drug was teratogenic in rats when doses that were about 0.1 times the human exposure based on AUC (area under the curve) at the recommended daily dose during organogenesis. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryofetal toxicity.

Fluorodopa f18 (214) is a radioactive diagnostic agent. It is indicated for use in positron emission tomography to visualize dopaminergic nerve terminals in the striatum for evaluation of adult patients with suspected parkinsonian syndromes. The potential for adverse pregnant outcomes is based on the radiation dose and the gestational timing of exposure.

Givosiran sodium (Givlaari) (17,2460) is an aminolevulinate synthase 1-directed small interfering RNA given subcutaneously. It is indicated for the treatment of adults with acute hepatic porphyria. Doses less than 10 times the human dose in rats and rabbits produced maternal toxicity. In rats there was increased postimplantation loss, and in rats there was skeletal variation (incomplete ossification of pubes).

Golodirsen (Vyondys 53) (8,647) is indicated for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy given intravenously. There are no human or animal data available to assess the use of this drug during pregnancy.

Istradefylline (Nourianz) (384) is an adenosine receptor antagonist given orally. It is indicated as adjunctive treatment to levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson’s disease experiencing “off” episodes. In pregnant rats and rabbits, the drug was related to teratogenicity, embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and growth deficits at clinically relevant exposures.

Lasmiditan (Reyvow) (436), a serotonin receptor agonist, is indicated for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. In animals, the drug caused increased incidences of fetal defects, increased embryo-fetal and offspring mortality, and decreased fetal body weight at maternal exposures less than (rabbits) or greater than (rat) those observed clinically.

Lefamulin (Xenleta) (568) is an antibacterial agent available for oral and IV administration. They are indicated for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia. The drug was teratogenic in rats at systemic exposures lower than those in humans, an increased incidence of post-implantation fetal loss and stillbirths, and decreased fetal body weights and ossification. There was also an apparent delay in sexual maturation in rats.

Luspatercept (Reblozyl) (76,000) is given subcutaneously for the treatment of anemia in patients with beta thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions. In rats and rabbits, the drug cause increased embryo-fetal mortality, alteration to growth, and structural defects at exposures (based on AUC) that were about 13 times (rats) and 18 times (rabbits) the maximum recommended human dose.

Pexidartinib (Turalio) (454) is an oral kinase inhibitor that is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable with surgery. In rats and rabbits, the drug caused malformations, increased post-implantation loss, and abortion at exposures nearly equal to the human exposure. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Pitolisant HCl (Wakix) (296) is an histamine-3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist indicated for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy. The drug has caused maternal and embryofetal toxicity in rats and rabbits at doses greater than and equal to 13 times and greater than 4 times the maximum human dose, respectively. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry that patients can contact at 1-800-833-7460.

Prabotulinum toxin A (Jeuveau) (900,000) is an acetylcholine release inhibitor and a neuromuscular blocking agent indicated for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar lines associated with corrugator and/or procerus muscle activity. The drug caused no adverse embryo-fetal in rats with doses up to 12 times the human dose.

Risankizumab-rzaa (Skyrizi) (molecular weight unknown), an interleukin-23 antagonist, is used for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In pregnant monkeys, doses that were 20 times the maximum human dose increased fetal/infant loss.

Selinexor (Xpovio) (443) is an oral nuclear export inhibitor given in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or refractory myeloma. At doses lower than those used clinically, the drug caused structural abnormalities and alterations to growth in fetal rats.

Siponimod (Mayzent) (1,149) is an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator. It is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. At low doses, the drug caused embryotoxicity and fetotoxicity in rats and rabbits including embryofetal deaths and abortions. The drug was teratogenic in both species.

Solriamfetol (Sunosi) (231) is an oral dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that is indicated to improve wakefulness in adult patients with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. The drug caused maternal and fetal toxicities in rats and rabbits and was teratogenic. The manufacturer has a pregnancy exposure registry to monitor pregnancy outcomes. Health care providers or patients can enroll in the program by calling 1-877-283-6220 or contacting the company.

Tafamidis meglumine (Vyndaqel) (503) and tafamidis (Vyndamax) (308) are indicated for the treatment of the cardiomyopathy of wild type or hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis to reduce cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. In rabbits and rats, use of the drugs during pregnancy caused birth defects, embryo-fetal mortality, and fetal body weight reduction. Limited available data with Vyndaqel use in human pregnancy at a dose of 20 mg/day have not identified any drug-associated risks for major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes (see package insert).

Tenapanor (Ibsrela) (1,218) is indicated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. The drug is minimally absorbed systemically, with plasma concentrations below the limit of quantification. No adverse maternal or fetal outcomes in rats or rabbits were observed. As reported by the manufacturer, in a small number of pregnant women, no drug-induced adverse maternal or fetal outcomes were identified.

Triclabendazole (Egaten) (360), an oral anthelmintic, is indicated for the treatment of fascioliasis. The drug was not teratogenic in mice and rabbits.

Trifarotene (Aklief) (460) cream is a retinoid that is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. Animal data was related to oral retinoids and it not applicable to this agent. The manufacturer reported that available data from the use of the cream in pregnant women have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) (389) is an oral Janus inhibitor. It is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. The drug caused increases in fetal malformations when given to rats and rabbits during organogenesis.

Voxelotor (Oxbryta) (337) is an oral hemoglobin S polymerization inhibitor indicated for the treatment of sickle cell disease. In rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of adverse developmental outcomes.

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) (472), an oral kinase inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma. The drug caused embryofetal toxicity in pregnant rats, including malformations. It is contraindicated in pregnancy because it can cause embryo-fetal toxicity.

Breastfeeding

Brexanolone (Zulresso) (319) is indicated for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is given as a continuous IV infusion over 60 hours. The drug, at exposures close to those seen in humans, did not cause structural defects in rabbits and rats, but did cause fetal toxicity. Because patients are at risk of excessive sedation or sudden loss of consciousness when receiving the drug, it is only available through a restricted program called the ZULRESSO REMS. Health care providers are encouraged to register patients by calling the National Pregnancy Registry for Antidepressants at 844-405-6185. To obtain a list of health care facilities enrolled in the program call 844-472-4379.

Nearly all of the above drugs will cross into a woman’s colostrum during the first 48 hours post partum. These amounts should be very small, but not breastfeeding is the best choice.
 

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

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

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

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

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

Although the last decade has brought appropriate increased interest in the diagnosis and treatment of postpartum depression, with screening initiatives across more than 40 states in place and even new medications being brought to market for treatment, far less attention has been given to diagnosis and treatment of a particularly serious psychiatric illness: postpartum psychosis.

Postpartum psychosis is relatively rare, with an incidence of 1 in 1,000 births, but it is one of the most serious complications of modern obstetrics. Clinically, women can experience rapid mood changes, most often with the presentation that is consistent with a manic-like psychosis, with associated symptoms of delusional thinking, hallucinations, paranoia and either depression or elation, or an amalgam of these so-called “mixed symptoms.” Onset of symptoms typically is early, within 72 hours as is classically described, but may have a somewhat later time of onset in some women.

Many investigators have studied risk factors for postpartum psychosis, and it has been well established that a history of mood disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, is one of the strongest predictors of risk for postpartum psychosis. Women with histories of postpartum psychosis are at very high risk of recurrence, with as many as 70%-90% of women experiencing recurrence if not prophylaxed with an appropriate agent. From a clinical point of view, women with postpartum psychosis typically are hospitalized, given that this is both a psychiatric and potential obstetrical emergency. In fact, the data would suggest that although postpartum suicide and infanticide are not common, they can be a tragic concomitant of postpartum psychosis (Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Dec 1;173[12]:1179-88).

A great amount of interest has been placed on the etiology of postpartum psychosis, as it’s a dramatic presentation with very rapid onset in the acute postpartum period. A rich evidence base with respect to an algorithm of treatment that maximizes likelihood of full recovery or sustaining of euthymia after recovery is limited. Few studies have looked systematically at the optimum way to treat postpartum psychosis. Clinical wisdom has dictated that, given the dramatic symptoms with which these patients present, most patients are treated with lithium and an antipsychotic medication as if they have a manic-like psychosis. It may take brief or extended periods of time for patients to stabilize. Once they are stabilized, one of the most challenging questions for clinicians is how long to treat. Again, an evidence base clearly informing this question is lacking.

Over the years, many clinicians have treated patients with postpartum psychosis as if they have bipolar disorder, given the index presentation of the illness, so some of these patients are treated with antimanic drugs indefinitely. However, clinical experience from several centers that treat women with postpartum psychosis suggests that in remitted patients, a proportion of them may be able to taper and discontinue treatment, then sustain well-being for protracted periods.

One obstacle with respect to treatment of postpartum psychosis derives from the short length of stay after delivery for many women. Some women who present with symptoms of postpartum psychosis in the first 24-48 hours frequently are managed with direct admission to an inpatient psychiatric service. But others may not develop symptoms until they are home, which may place both mother and newborn at risk.

Given that the risk for recurrent postpartum psychosis is so great (70%-90%), women with histories of postpartum psychosis invariably are prophylaxed with mood stabilizer prior to delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. In our own center, we have published on the value of such prophylactic intervention, not just in women with postpartum psychosis, but in women with bipolar disorder, who are, as noted, at great risk for developing postpartum psychotic symptoms (Am J Psychiatry. 1995 Nov;152[11]:1641-5.)

Although postpartum psychosis may be rare, over the last 3 decades we have seen a substantial number of women with postpartum psychosis and have been fascinated with the spectrum of symptoms with which some women with postpartum psychotic illness present. We also have been impressed with the time required for some women to recompensate from their illness and the course of their disorder after they have seemingly remitted. Some women appear to be able to discontinue treatment as noted above; others, particularly if there is any history of bipolar disorder, need to be maintained on treatment with mood stabilizer indefinitely.

To better understand the phenomenology of postpartum psychosis, as well as the longitudinal course of the illness, in 2019, the Mass General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established. The project is conducted as a hospital-based registry where women with histories of postpartum psychosis over the last decade are invited to participate in an in-depth interview to understand both symptoms and course of underlying illness. This is complemented by obtaining a sample of saliva, which is used for genetic testing to try to identify a genetic underpinning associated with postpartum psychosis, as the question of genetic etiology of postpartum psychosis is still an open one.

As part of the MGHP3 project, clinicians across the country are able to contact perinatal psychiatrists in our center with expertise in the treatment of postpartum psychosis. Our psychiatrists also can counsel clinicians on issues regarding long-term management of postpartum psychosis because for many, knowledge of precisely how to manage this disorder or the follow-up treatment may be incomplete.

From a clinical point of view, the relevant questions really include not only acute treatment, which has already been outlined, but also the issue of duration of treatment. While some patients may be able to taper and discontinue treatment after, for example, a year of being totally well, to date we are unable to know who those patients are. We tend to be more conservative in our own center and treat patients with puerperal psychosis for a more protracted period of time, usually over several years. We also ask women about their family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis. Depending on the clinical course (if the patient really has sustained euthymia), we consider slow taper and ultimate discontinuation. As always, treatment decisions are tailored to individual clinical history, course, and patient wishes.

Postpartum psychosis remains one of the most serious illnesses that we find in reproductive psychiatry, and incomplete attention has been given to this devastating illness, which we read about periodically in newspapers and magazines. Greater understanding of postpartum psychosis will lead to a more precision-like psychiatric approach, tailoring treatment to the invariable heterogeneity of this illness.

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