From the Editor

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a common complication of birth. In 2019, 4.3% of births in the United States were complicated by at least one episode of PPH.¹ Major causes of PPH include uterine atony, retained products of conception, reproductive tract trauma, and coagulopathy.² Active management of the third stage of labor with the routine administration of postpartum uterotonics reduces the risk of PPH.^3,4

PPH treatment requires a systematic approach using appropriate uterotonic medications, tranexamic acid, and procedures performed in a timely sequence to resolve the hemorrhage. Following vaginal birth, procedures that do not require a laparotomy to treat PPH include uterine massage, uterine evacuation to remove retained placental tissue, repair of lacerations, uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), uterine packing, a vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device (VHCD; JADA, Organon), and uterine artery embolization. Following cesarean birth, with an open laparotomy incision, interventions to treat PPH due to atony include vascular ligation, uterine compression sutures, UBT, VHCD, hysterectomy, and pelvic packing.²

Over the past 2 decades, UBT has been widely used for the treatment of PPH with a success rate in observational studies of approximately 86%.⁵ The uterine balloon creates pressure against the wall of the uterus permitting accumulation of platelets at bleeding sites, enhancing the activity of the clotting system. The uterine balloon provides direct pressure on the bleeding site(s). It is well known in trauma care that the first step to treat a bleeding wound is to apply direct pressure to the bleeding site. During the third stage of labor, a natural process is tetanic uterine contraction, which constricts myometrial vessels and the placenta bed. Placing a balloon in the uterus and inflating the balloon to 200 mL to 500 mL may delay the involution of the uterus that should occur following birth. An observation of great interest is the insight that inducing a vacuum in the uterine cavity may enhance tetanic uterine contraction and constriction of the myometrial vessels. Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control is discussed in detail in this editorial.

Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device

A new device for the treatment of PPH due to uterine atony is the JADA VHCD (FIGURE), which generates negative intrauterine pressure causing the uterus to contract, thereby constricting myometrial vessels and reducing uterine bleeding. The JADA VHCD system is indicated to provide control and treatment of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding following vaginal or cesarean birth caused by uterine atony when conservative management is indicated.⁶

obgm03508004_editorial_fig.jpg

System components

The JADA VHCD consists of a leading portion intended to be inserted into the uterine cavity, which consists of a silicone elliptical loop with 20 vacuum pores. A soft shield covers the vacuum loop to reduce the risk of the vacuum pores being clogged with biological material, including blood and clots. The elliptical loop is attached to a catheter intended for connection to a vacuum source set to 80 mm Hg ±10 mm Hg (hospital wall suction or portable suction device) with an in-line cannister to collect blood. Approximately 16 cm from the tip of the elliptical loop is a balloon that should be positioned in the upper vagina, not inside the cervix, and inflated with fluid (60 mL to 120 mL) through a dedicated port to occlude the vagina, thereby preserving a stable intrauterine vacuum.

Continue to: Correct usage...

Correct usage

A simple mnemonic to facilitate use of the JADA VHCD is “120/80”—fill the vaginal balloon with 120 mL of sterile fluid and attach the tubing to a source that is set to provide 80 mm Hg of vacuum with an in-line collection cannister. The VHCD may not work correctly if there is a substantial amount of blood in the uterus. Clinical experts advise that an important step prior to placing the elliptical loop in the uterus is to perform a sweep of the uterine cavity with a hand or instrument to remove clots and ensure there is no retained placental tissue. It is preferable to assemble the suction tubing, syringe, sterile fluid, and other instruments (eg, forceps, speculum) needed to insert the device prior to attempting to place the VHCD. When the elliptical loop is compressed for insertion, it is about 2 cm in diameter, necessitating that the cervix be dilated sufficiently to accommodate the device.

Immediately after placing the VHCD, contractions can be monitored by physical examination and the amount of ongoing bleeding can be estimated by observing the amount of blood accumulating in the cannister. Rapid onset of a palpable increase in uterine tone is a prominent feature of successful treatment of PPH with the VHCD. The VHCD should be kept in the uterus with active suction for at least 1 hour. Taping the tubing to the inner thigh may help stabilize the device. Once bleeding is controlled, prior to removing the device, the vacuum should be discontinued, and bleeding activityshould be assessed for at least 30 minutes. If the patient is stable, the vaginal balloon can be deflated, followed by removal of the device. The VHCD should be removed within 24 hours of placement.⁶

The JADA VHCD system should not be used with ongoing intrauterine pregnancy, untreated uterine rupture, unresolved uterine inversion, current cervical cancer, or serious infection of the uterus.⁶ The VHCD has not been evaluated for effectiveness in the treatment of placenta accreta or coagulopathy. The VHCD has not been specifically evaluated for safety and effectiveness in patients < 34 weeks’ duration, but clinicians report successful use of the device in cases of PPH that have occurred in the second and early-third trimesters. If the device can be appropriately placed with the elliptical loop in the uterus and the balloon in the vagina, it is theoretically possible to use the device for cases of PPH occurring before 34 weeks’ gestation.

When using the JADA VHCD system, it is important to simultaneously provide cardiovascular support, appropriate transfusion of blood products and timely surgical intervention, if indicated. All obstetricians know that in complicated cases of PPH, where conservative measures have not worked, uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy may be the only interventions that will prevent serious patient morbidity.

Effectiveness data

The VHCD has not been evaluated against an alternative approach, such as UBT, in published randomized clinical trials. However, prospective cohort studies have reported that the JADA is often successful in the treatment of PPH.^7-10

In a multicenter cohort study of 107 patients with PPH, including 91 vaginal and 16 cesarean births, 100 patients (93%) were successfully treated with the JADA VHCD.⁷ Median blood loss before application of the system was 870 mL with vaginal birth and 1,300 mL with cesarean birth. Definitive control of the hemorrhage was observed at a median of 3 minutes after initiation of the intrauterine vacuum. In this study, 32% of patients had reproductive tract lacerations that needed to be repaired, and 2 patients required a hysterectomy. Forty patients required a blood transfusion.

Two patients were treated with a Bakri UBT when the VHCD did not resolve the PPH. In this cohort, the vacuum was applied for a median duration of 144 minutes, and a median total device dwell time was 191 minutes. Compared with UBT, the JADA VHCD intrauterine dwell time was shorter, facilitating patient progression and early transfer to the postpartum unit. The physicians who participated in the study reported that the device was easy to use. The complications reported in this cohort were minor and included endometritis (5 cases), vaginal infection (2 cases), and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair (1 case).⁷

Novel approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum to treat PPH

The JADA VHCD is the only vacuum device approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of PPH. However, clinical innovators have reported alternative approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum using equipment designed for other purposes. In one study, a Bakri balloon was used to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade to treat PPH.¹¹ In this study, a Bakri balloon was inserted into the uterus, and the balloon was inflated to 50 mL to 100 mL to seal the vacuum. The main Bakri port was attached to a suction aspiration device set to generate a vacuum of 450 mm Hg to 525 mm Hg, a much greater vacuum than used with the JADA VHCD. This study included 44 cases of PPH due to uterine atony and 22 cases due to placental pathology, with successful treatment of PPH in 86% and 73% of the cases, respectively.

Another approach to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade involves using a Levin stomach tube (FG24 or FG36), which has an open end and 4 side ports near the open tip.^12-14 The Levin stomach tube is low cost and has many favorable design features, including a rounded tip, wide-bore, and circumferentially placed side ports. The FG36 Levin stomach tube is 12 mm in diameter and has 10 mm side ports. A vacuum device set to deliver 100 mm Hg to 200 mm Hgwas used in some of the studies evaluating the Levin stomach tube for the treatment of PPH. In 3 cases of severe PPH unresponsive to standard interventions, creation of vacuum tamponade with flexible suction tubing with side ports was successful in controlling the hemorrhage.¹³

Dr. T.N. Vasudeva Panicker invented an intrauterine cannula 12 mm in diameter and 25 cm in length, with dozens of 4 mm side ports over the distal 12 cm of the cannula.¹⁵ The cannula, which is made of stainless steel or plastic, is inserted into the uterus and 700 mm Hgvacuum is applied, a level much greater than the 80 mm Hg vacuum recommended for use with the JADA VHCD. When successful, the high suction clears the uterus of blood and causes uterine contraction. In 4 cases of severe PPH, the device successfully controlled the hemorrhage. In 2 of the 4 cases the device that was initially placed became clogged with blood and needed to be replaced.

UBT vs VHCD

To date there are no published randomized controlled trials comparing Bakri UBT to the JADA VHCD. In one retrospective study, the frequency of massive transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), defined as the transfusion of 4 units or greater of RBCs, was assessed among 78 patients treated with the Bakri UBT and 36 patients treated with the JADA VHCD.⁹ In this study, at baseline there was a non ̶ statistically significant trend for JADA VHCD to be used more frequently than the Bakri UBT in cases of PPH occurring during repeat cesarean delivery (33% vs 14%). The Bakri UBT was used more frequently than the JADA VHCD among patients having a PPH following a vaginal delivery (51% vs 31%). Both devices were used at similar rates for operative vaginal delivery (6%) and primary cesarean birth (31% VHCD and 28% UBT).

In this retrospective study, the percentage of patients treated with VHCD or UBT who received 4 or more units of RBCs was 3% and 21%, respectively (P < .01). Among patients treated with VHCD and UBT, the estimated median blood loss was 1,500 mL and 1,850 mL (P=.02), respectively. The median hemoglobin concentration at discharge was similar in the VHCD and UBT groups, 8.8 g/dL and 8.6 g/dL, respectively.⁹ A randomized controlled trial is necessary to refine our understanding of the comparative effectiveness of UBT and VHCD in controlling PPH following vaginal and cesarean birth.

A welcome addition to treatment options

Every obstetrician knows that, in the next 12 months of their practice, they will encounter multiple cases of PPH. One or two of these cases may require the physician to use every medication and procedure available for the treatment of PPH to save the life of the patient. To prepare to treat the next case of PPH rapidly and effectively, it is important for every obstetrician to develop a standardized cognitive plan for using all available treatmentmodalities in an appropriate and timely sequence, including both the Bakri balloon and the JADA VHCD. The insight that inducing an intrauterine vacuum causes uterine contraction, which may resolve PPH, is an important discovery. The JADA VHCD is a welcome addition to our armamentarium of treatments for PPH. ●
 

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a common complication of birth. In 2019, 4.3% of births in the United States were complicated by at least one episode of PPH.¹ Major causes of PPH include uterine atony, retained products of conception, reproductive tract trauma, and coagulopathy.² Active management of the third stage of labor with the routine administration of postpartum uterotonics reduces the risk of PPH.^3,4

PPH treatment requires a systematic approach using appropriate uterotonic medications, tranexamic acid, and procedures performed in a timely sequence to resolve the hemorrhage. Following vaginal birth, procedures that do not require a laparotomy to treat PPH include uterine massage, uterine evacuation to remove retained placental tissue, repair of lacerations, uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), uterine packing, a vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device (VHCD; JADA, Organon), and uterine artery embolization. Following cesarean birth, with an open laparotomy incision, interventions to treat PPH due to atony include vascular ligation, uterine compression sutures, UBT, VHCD, hysterectomy, and pelvic packing.²

Over the past 2 decades, UBT has been widely used for the treatment of PPH with a success rate in observational studies of approximately 86%.⁵ The uterine balloon creates pressure against the wall of the uterus permitting accumulation of platelets at bleeding sites, enhancing the activity of the clotting system. The uterine balloon provides direct pressure on the bleeding site(s). It is well known in trauma care that the first step to treat a bleeding wound is to apply direct pressure to the bleeding site. During the third stage of labor, a natural process is tetanic uterine contraction, which constricts myometrial vessels and the placenta bed. Placing a balloon in the uterus and inflating the balloon to 200 mL to 500 mL may delay the involution of the uterus that should occur following birth. An observation of great interest is the insight that inducing a vacuum in the uterine cavity may enhance tetanic uterine contraction and constriction of the myometrial vessels. Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control is discussed in detail in this editorial.

Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device

A new device for the treatment of PPH due to uterine atony is the JADA VHCD (FIGURE), which generates negative intrauterine pressure causing the uterus to contract, thereby constricting myometrial vessels and reducing uterine bleeding. The JADA VHCD system is indicated to provide control and treatment of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding following vaginal or cesarean birth caused by uterine atony when conservative management is indicated.⁶

obgm03508004_editorial_fig.jpg

System components

The JADA VHCD consists of a leading portion intended to be inserted into the uterine cavity, which consists of a silicone elliptical loop with 20 vacuum pores. A soft shield covers the vacuum loop to reduce the risk of the vacuum pores being clogged with biological material, including blood and clots. The elliptical loop is attached to a catheter intended for connection to a vacuum source set to 80 mm Hg ±10 mm Hg (hospital wall suction or portable suction device) with an in-line cannister to collect blood. Approximately 16 cm from the tip of the elliptical loop is a balloon that should be positioned in the upper vagina, not inside the cervix, and inflated with fluid (60 mL to 120 mL) through a dedicated port to occlude the vagina, thereby preserving a stable intrauterine vacuum.

Continue to: Correct usage...

Correct usage

A simple mnemonic to facilitate use of the JADA VHCD is “120/80”—fill the vaginal balloon with 120 mL of sterile fluid and attach the tubing to a source that is set to provide 80 mm Hg of vacuum with an in-line collection cannister. The VHCD may not work correctly if there is a substantial amount of blood in the uterus. Clinical experts advise that an important step prior to placing the elliptical loop in the uterus is to perform a sweep of the uterine cavity with a hand or instrument to remove clots and ensure there is no retained placental tissue. It is preferable to assemble the suction tubing, syringe, sterile fluid, and other instruments (eg, forceps, speculum) needed to insert the device prior to attempting to place the VHCD. When the elliptical loop is compressed for insertion, it is about 2 cm in diameter, necessitating that the cervix be dilated sufficiently to accommodate the device.

Immediately after placing the VHCD, contractions can be monitored by physical examination and the amount of ongoing bleeding can be estimated by observing the amount of blood accumulating in the cannister. Rapid onset of a palpable increase in uterine tone is a prominent feature of successful treatment of PPH with the VHCD. The VHCD should be kept in the uterus with active suction for at least 1 hour. Taping the tubing to the inner thigh may help stabilize the device. Once bleeding is controlled, prior to removing the device, the vacuum should be discontinued, and bleeding activityshould be assessed for at least 30 minutes. If the patient is stable, the vaginal balloon can be deflated, followed by removal of the device. The VHCD should be removed within 24 hours of placement.⁶

The JADA VHCD system should not be used with ongoing intrauterine pregnancy, untreated uterine rupture, unresolved uterine inversion, current cervical cancer, or serious infection of the uterus.⁶ The VHCD has not been evaluated for effectiveness in the treatment of placenta accreta or coagulopathy. The VHCD has not been specifically evaluated for safety and effectiveness in patients < 34 weeks’ duration, but clinicians report successful use of the device in cases of PPH that have occurred in the second and early-third trimesters. If the device can be appropriately placed with the elliptical loop in the uterus and the balloon in the vagina, it is theoretically possible to use the device for cases of PPH occurring before 34 weeks’ gestation.

When using the JADA VHCD system, it is important to simultaneously provide cardiovascular support, appropriate transfusion of blood products and timely surgical intervention, if indicated. All obstetricians know that in complicated cases of PPH, where conservative measures have not worked, uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy may be the only interventions that will prevent serious patient morbidity.

Effectiveness data

The VHCD has not been evaluated against an alternative approach, such as UBT, in published randomized clinical trials. However, prospective cohort studies have reported that the JADA is often successful in the treatment of PPH.^7-10

In a multicenter cohort study of 107 patients with PPH, including 91 vaginal and 16 cesarean births, 100 patients (93%) were successfully treated with the JADA VHCD.⁷ Median blood loss before application of the system was 870 mL with vaginal birth and 1,300 mL with cesarean birth. Definitive control of the hemorrhage was observed at a median of 3 minutes after initiation of the intrauterine vacuum. In this study, 32% of patients had reproductive tract lacerations that needed to be repaired, and 2 patients required a hysterectomy. Forty patients required a blood transfusion.

Two patients were treated with a Bakri UBT when the VHCD did not resolve the PPH. In this cohort, the vacuum was applied for a median duration of 144 minutes, and a median total device dwell time was 191 minutes. Compared with UBT, the JADA VHCD intrauterine dwell time was shorter, facilitating patient progression and early transfer to the postpartum unit. The physicians who participated in the study reported that the device was easy to use. The complications reported in this cohort were minor and included endometritis (5 cases), vaginal infection (2 cases), and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair (1 case).⁷

Novel approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum to treat PPH

The JADA VHCD is the only vacuum device approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of PPH. However, clinical innovators have reported alternative approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum using equipment designed for other purposes. In one study, a Bakri balloon was used to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade to treat PPH.¹¹ In this study, a Bakri balloon was inserted into the uterus, and the balloon was inflated to 50 mL to 100 mL to seal the vacuum. The main Bakri port was attached to a suction aspiration device set to generate a vacuum of 450 mm Hg to 525 mm Hg, a much greater vacuum than used with the JADA VHCD. This study included 44 cases of PPH due to uterine atony and 22 cases due to placental pathology, with successful treatment of PPH in 86% and 73% of the cases, respectively.

Another approach to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade involves using a Levin stomach tube (FG24 or FG36), which has an open end and 4 side ports near the open tip.^12-14 The Levin stomach tube is low cost and has many favorable design features, including a rounded tip, wide-bore, and circumferentially placed side ports. The FG36 Levin stomach tube is 12 mm in diameter and has 10 mm side ports. A vacuum device set to deliver 100 mm Hg to 200 mm Hgwas used in some of the studies evaluating the Levin stomach tube for the treatment of PPH. In 3 cases of severe PPH unresponsive to standard interventions, creation of vacuum tamponade with flexible suction tubing with side ports was successful in controlling the hemorrhage.¹³

Dr. T.N. Vasudeva Panicker invented an intrauterine cannula 12 mm in diameter and 25 cm in length, with dozens of 4 mm side ports over the distal 12 cm of the cannula.¹⁵ The cannula, which is made of stainless steel or plastic, is inserted into the uterus and 700 mm Hgvacuum is applied, a level much greater than the 80 mm Hg vacuum recommended for use with the JADA VHCD. When successful, the high suction clears the uterus of blood and causes uterine contraction. In 4 cases of severe PPH, the device successfully controlled the hemorrhage. In 2 of the 4 cases the device that was initially placed became clogged with blood and needed to be replaced.

UBT vs VHCD

To date there are no published randomized controlled trials comparing Bakri UBT to the JADA VHCD. In one retrospective study, the frequency of massive transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), defined as the transfusion of 4 units or greater of RBCs, was assessed among 78 patients treated with the Bakri UBT and 36 patients treated with the JADA VHCD.⁹ In this study, at baseline there was a non ̶ statistically significant trend for JADA VHCD to be used more frequently than the Bakri UBT in cases of PPH occurring during repeat cesarean delivery (33% vs 14%). The Bakri UBT was used more frequently than the JADA VHCD among patients having a PPH following a vaginal delivery (51% vs 31%). Both devices were used at similar rates for operative vaginal delivery (6%) and primary cesarean birth (31% VHCD and 28% UBT).

In this retrospective study, the percentage of patients treated with VHCD or UBT who received 4 or more units of RBCs was 3% and 21%, respectively (P < .01). Among patients treated with VHCD and UBT, the estimated median blood loss was 1,500 mL and 1,850 mL (P=.02), respectively. The median hemoglobin concentration at discharge was similar in the VHCD and UBT groups, 8.8 g/dL and 8.6 g/dL, respectively.⁹ A randomized controlled trial is necessary to refine our understanding of the comparative effectiveness of UBT and VHCD in controlling PPH following vaginal and cesarean birth.

A welcome addition to treatment options

Every obstetrician knows that, in the next 12 months of their practice, they will encounter multiple cases of PPH. One or two of these cases may require the physician to use every medication and procedure available for the treatment of PPH to save the life of the patient. To prepare to treat the next case of PPH rapidly and effectively, it is important for every obstetrician to develop a standardized cognitive plan for using all available treatmentmodalities in an appropriate and timely sequence, including both the Bakri balloon and the JADA VHCD. The insight that inducing an intrauterine vacuum causes uterine contraction, which may resolve PPH, is an important discovery. The JADA VHCD is a welcome addition to our armamentarium of treatments for PPH. ●
 

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a common complication of birth. In 2019, 4.3% of births in the United States were complicated by at least one episode of PPH.¹ Major causes of PPH include uterine atony, retained products of conception, reproductive tract trauma, and coagulopathy.² Active management of the third stage of labor with the routine administration of postpartum uterotonics reduces the risk of PPH.^3,4

PPH treatment requires a systematic approach using appropriate uterotonic medications, tranexamic acid, and procedures performed in a timely sequence to resolve the hemorrhage. Following vaginal birth, procedures that do not require a laparotomy to treat PPH include uterine massage, uterine evacuation to remove retained placental tissue, repair of lacerations, uterine balloon tamponade (UBT), uterine packing, a vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device (VHCD; JADA, Organon), and uterine artery embolization. Following cesarean birth, with an open laparotomy incision, interventions to treat PPH due to atony include vascular ligation, uterine compression sutures, UBT, VHCD, hysterectomy, and pelvic packing.²

Over the past 2 decades, UBT has been widely used for the treatment of PPH with a success rate in observational studies of approximately 86%.⁵ The uterine balloon creates pressure against the wall of the uterus permitting accumulation of platelets at bleeding sites, enhancing the activity of the clotting system. The uterine balloon provides direct pressure on the bleeding site(s). It is well known in trauma care that the first step to treat a bleeding wound is to apply direct pressure to the bleeding site. During the third stage of labor, a natural process is tetanic uterine contraction, which constricts myometrial vessels and the placenta bed. Placing a balloon in the uterus and inflating the balloon to 200 mL to 500 mL may delay the involution of the uterus that should occur following birth. An observation of great interest is the insight that inducing a vacuum in the uterine cavity may enhance tetanic uterine contraction and constriction of the myometrial vessels. Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control is discussed in detail in this editorial.

Vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device

A new device for the treatment of PPH due to uterine atony is the JADA VHCD (FIGURE), which generates negative intrauterine pressure causing the uterus to contract, thereby constricting myometrial vessels and reducing uterine bleeding. The JADA VHCD system is indicated to provide control and treatment of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding following vaginal or cesarean birth caused by uterine atony when conservative management is indicated.⁶

obgm03508004_editorial_fig.jpg

System components

The JADA VHCD consists of a leading portion intended to be inserted into the uterine cavity, which consists of a silicone elliptical loop with 20 vacuum pores. A soft shield covers the vacuum loop to reduce the risk of the vacuum pores being clogged with biological material, including blood and clots. The elliptical loop is attached to a catheter intended for connection to a vacuum source set to 80 mm Hg ±10 mm Hg (hospital wall suction or portable suction device) with an in-line cannister to collect blood. Approximately 16 cm from the tip of the elliptical loop is a balloon that should be positioned in the upper vagina, not inside the cervix, and inflated with fluid (60 mL to 120 mL) through a dedicated port to occlude the vagina, thereby preserving a stable intrauterine vacuum.

Continue to: Correct usage...

Correct usage

A simple mnemonic to facilitate use of the JADA VHCD is “120/80”—fill the vaginal balloon with 120 mL of sterile fluid and attach the tubing to a source that is set to provide 80 mm Hg of vacuum with an in-line collection cannister. The VHCD may not work correctly if there is a substantial amount of blood in the uterus. Clinical experts advise that an important step prior to placing the elliptical loop in the uterus is to perform a sweep of the uterine cavity with a hand or instrument to remove clots and ensure there is no retained placental tissue. It is preferable to assemble the suction tubing, syringe, sterile fluid, and other instruments (eg, forceps, speculum) needed to insert the device prior to attempting to place the VHCD. When the elliptical loop is compressed for insertion, it is about 2 cm in diameter, necessitating that the cervix be dilated sufficiently to accommodate the device.

Immediately after placing the VHCD, contractions can be monitored by physical examination and the amount of ongoing bleeding can be estimated by observing the amount of blood accumulating in the cannister. Rapid onset of a palpable increase in uterine tone is a prominent feature of successful treatment of PPH with the VHCD. The VHCD should be kept in the uterus with active suction for at least 1 hour. Taping the tubing to the inner thigh may help stabilize the device. Once bleeding is controlled, prior to removing the device, the vacuum should be discontinued, and bleeding activityshould be assessed for at least 30 minutes. If the patient is stable, the vaginal balloon can be deflated, followed by removal of the device. The VHCD should be removed within 24 hours of placement.⁶

The JADA VHCD system should not be used with ongoing intrauterine pregnancy, untreated uterine rupture, unresolved uterine inversion, current cervical cancer, or serious infection of the uterus.⁶ The VHCD has not been evaluated for effectiveness in the treatment of placenta accreta or coagulopathy. The VHCD has not been specifically evaluated for safety and effectiveness in patients < 34 weeks’ duration, but clinicians report successful use of the device in cases of PPH that have occurred in the second and early-third trimesters. If the device can be appropriately placed with the elliptical loop in the uterus and the balloon in the vagina, it is theoretically possible to use the device for cases of PPH occurring before 34 weeks’ gestation.

When using the JADA VHCD system, it is important to simultaneously provide cardiovascular support, appropriate transfusion of blood products and timely surgical intervention, if indicated. All obstetricians know that in complicated cases of PPH, where conservative measures have not worked, uterine artery embolization or hysterectomy may be the only interventions that will prevent serious patient morbidity.

Effectiveness data

The VHCD has not been evaluated against an alternative approach, such as UBT, in published randomized clinical trials. However, prospective cohort studies have reported that the JADA is often successful in the treatment of PPH.^7-10

In a multicenter cohort study of 107 patients with PPH, including 91 vaginal and 16 cesarean births, 100 patients (93%) were successfully treated with the JADA VHCD.⁷ Median blood loss before application of the system was 870 mL with vaginal birth and 1,300 mL with cesarean birth. Definitive control of the hemorrhage was observed at a median of 3 minutes after initiation of the intrauterine vacuum. In this study, 32% of patients had reproductive tract lacerations that needed to be repaired, and 2 patients required a hysterectomy. Forty patients required a blood transfusion.

Two patients were treated with a Bakri UBT when the VHCD did not resolve the PPH. In this cohort, the vacuum was applied for a median duration of 144 minutes, and a median total device dwell time was 191 minutes. Compared with UBT, the JADA VHCD intrauterine dwell time was shorter, facilitating patient progression and early transfer to the postpartum unit. The physicians who participated in the study reported that the device was easy to use. The complications reported in this cohort were minor and included endometritis (5 cases), vaginal infection (2 cases), and disruption of a vaginal laceration repair (1 case).⁷

Novel approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum to treat PPH

The JADA VHCD is the only vacuum device approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of PPH. However, clinical innovators have reported alternative approaches to generating an intrauterine vacuum using equipment designed for other purposes. In one study, a Bakri balloon was used to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade to treat PPH.¹¹ In this study, a Bakri balloon was inserted into the uterus, and the balloon was inflated to 50 mL to 100 mL to seal the vacuum. The main Bakri port was attached to a suction aspiration device set to generate a vacuum of 450 mm Hg to 525 mm Hg, a much greater vacuum than used with the JADA VHCD. This study included 44 cases of PPH due to uterine atony and 22 cases due to placental pathology, with successful treatment of PPH in 86% and 73% of the cases, respectively.

Another approach to generate intrauterine vacuum tamponade involves using a Levin stomach tube (FG24 or FG36), which has an open end and 4 side ports near the open tip.^12-14 The Levin stomach tube is low cost and has many favorable design features, including a rounded tip, wide-bore, and circumferentially placed side ports. The FG36 Levin stomach tube is 12 mm in diameter and has 10 mm side ports. A vacuum device set to deliver 100 mm Hg to 200 mm Hgwas used in some of the studies evaluating the Levin stomach tube for the treatment of PPH. In 3 cases of severe PPH unresponsive to standard interventions, creation of vacuum tamponade with flexible suction tubing with side ports was successful in controlling the hemorrhage.¹³

Dr. T.N. Vasudeva Panicker invented an intrauterine cannula 12 mm in diameter and 25 cm in length, with dozens of 4 mm side ports over the distal 12 cm of the cannula.¹⁵ The cannula, which is made of stainless steel or plastic, is inserted into the uterus and 700 mm Hgvacuum is applied, a level much greater than the 80 mm Hg vacuum recommended for use with the JADA VHCD. When successful, the high suction clears the uterus of blood and causes uterine contraction. In 4 cases of severe PPH, the device successfully controlled the hemorrhage. In 2 of the 4 cases the device that was initially placed became clogged with blood and needed to be replaced.

UBT vs VHCD

To date there are no published randomized controlled trials comparing Bakri UBT to the JADA VHCD. In one retrospective study, the frequency of massive transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), defined as the transfusion of 4 units or greater of RBCs, was assessed among 78 patients treated with the Bakri UBT and 36 patients treated with the JADA VHCD.⁹ In this study, at baseline there was a non ̶ statistically significant trend for JADA VHCD to be used more frequently than the Bakri UBT in cases of PPH occurring during repeat cesarean delivery (33% vs 14%). The Bakri UBT was used more frequently than the JADA VHCD among patients having a PPH following a vaginal delivery (51% vs 31%). Both devices were used at similar rates for operative vaginal delivery (6%) and primary cesarean birth (31% VHCD and 28% UBT).

In this retrospective study, the percentage of patients treated with VHCD or UBT who received 4 or more units of RBCs was 3% and 21%, respectively (P < .01). Among patients treated with VHCD and UBT, the estimated median blood loss was 1,500 mL and 1,850 mL (P=.02), respectively. The median hemoglobin concentration at discharge was similar in the VHCD and UBT groups, 8.8 g/dL and 8.6 g/dL, respectively.⁹ A randomized controlled trial is necessary to refine our understanding of the comparative effectiveness of UBT and VHCD in controlling PPH following vaginal and cesarean birth.

A welcome addition to treatment options

Every obstetrician knows that, in the next 12 months of their practice, they will encounter multiple cases of PPH. One or two of these cases may require the physician to use every medication and procedure available for the treatment of PPH to save the life of the patient. To prepare to treat the next case of PPH rapidly and effectively, it is important for every obstetrician to develop a standardized cognitive plan for using all available treatmentmodalities in an appropriate and timely sequence, including both the Bakri balloon and the JADA VHCD. The insight that inducing an intrauterine vacuum causes uterine contraction, which may resolve PPH, is an important discovery. The JADA VHCD is a welcome addition to our armamentarium of treatments for PPH. ●
 

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

CP02208009_t1.png

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

CP02208009_t2.png

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

CP02208009_t3.png

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

[embed:render:related:node:150220]

[embed:render:related:node:250252]

[embed:render:related:node:239203]

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

CP02208009_t1.png

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

CP02208009_t2.png

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

CP02208009_t3.png

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

[embed:render:related:node:150220]

[embed:render:related:node:250252]

[embed:render:related:node:239203]

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

CP02208009_t1.png

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

CP02208009_t2.png

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

CP02208009_t3.png

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

[embed:render:related:node:150220]

[embed:render:related:node:250252]

[embed:render:related:node:239203]

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines the problem as weight that is higher than what is healthy for a given height, with quantitative definitions of overweight and obesity as body mass indices (BMIs) of 25 to 29.9 kg/m² and ≥ 30 kg/m², respectively.¹ The prevalence of obesity among adults in 2017 ̶ 2018 was reported by the CDC to be 42.4%.² Among women, the reported prevalence of obesity was lowest among Asian individuals (17.2%) and greatest among non-Hispanic Black individuals (56.9%), with White (39.8%) and Hispanic individuals (43.7%) having rates in between.² In a meta-analysis of prospective studies that included 4 million people who were never smokers and had no chronic disease at baseline, age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates were studied over a median of 14 years of follow-up.³ Compared with those with a BMI of 20 to 25 kg/m², people with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m² or a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m² had increased risks of death of 46% and 94%, respectively, demonstrating that obesity increases this risk.³

The increased risk of death associated with obesity is caused by obesity-related diseases that cause early mortality, including diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, and venous thromboembolic events.⁴ Obesity is also associated with an increased risk of many cancers, including cancer of the endometrium, kidney, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, gallbladder, pancreas, liver, and breast.⁵ With regard to gynecologic disease, obesity is associated with an increased risk of fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding.⁶ For pregnant patients, obesity is associated with increased risks of⁷:

• miscarriage and stillbirth
• preeclampsia and gestational hypertension
• gestational diabetes
• severe maternal morbidity
• postterm pregnancy
• venous thromboembolism
• endometritis.

For obese patients, weight loss can normalize blood pressure, reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, decrease the risk of cancer, and cure type 2 DM.⁸

Bariatric surgery: The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss

All patients with obesity should be counseled to reduce caloric intake and increase physical activity. Dietary counseling provided by a nutritionist may help reinforce advice given by a provider. However, lifestyle interventions are associated with modest weight loss (<5% of bodyweight; FIGURE).⁹ The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss is bariatric surgery.

In the Swedish Obese Subjects study, involving 2,010 people, following bariatric surgery the mean decrease in bodyweight was 23% at 2 years, with a slow increase in weight thereafter, resulting in a sustained mean weight loss of 18% at 10 years.⁸ In this study, people in the diet and exercise control group had no change in bodyweight over 10 years of follow-up.⁸ Not all eligible obese patients want to undergo bariatric surgery because it is an arduous sequential process involving 6 months of intensive preoperative preparation, bariatric surgery, recovery, and intensive postoperative follow-up. The perioperative mortality rate is 0.03% to 0.2%.¹⁰ Following bariatric surgery, additional operations may be necessary for more than 10% of patients.¹⁰ With recent breakthroughs in the medication management of obesity, patients who do not want bariatric surgery can achieve reliable weight loss of greater than 10% of body weight with glucagon-like peptide -1 (GLP-1) agonists.

obgm03507004_editorial_570x300.jpg

GLP-1 agonist analogues: Practice-changing breakthrough in medication treatment

GLP-1, a 30 amino acid peptide, is produced by intestinal enteroendocrine cells and neurons in the medulla and hypothalamus.¹¹ GLP-1 reduces hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing daily food intake.¹² GLP-1 also enhances the secretion of insulin, making GLP-1 agonists an effective treatment for type 2 DM. In humans and experimental animals, the administration of exogenous GLP-1 agonists decreases hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing food intake, resulting in weight loss.¹² The synthetic GLP-1 agonists, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as anti-obesity medications.

Native GLP-1 has a short circulating half-life of approximately 2 minutes. The synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications liraglutide and semaglutide are modified to significantly increase their half-life. Liraglutide is a modified version of GLP-1 with a palmitic acid side chain and an amino acid spacer resulting in reduced degradation and a 15-hour half-life, necessitating daily administration. Semaglutide has a steric acid diacid at Lys26, a large synthetic spacer, a modification of amino acid 8 with the addition of α-aminobutyric acid and a 165-hour half-life, permitting weekly administration.¹³ For weight loss, liraglutide and semaglultide are administered by subcutaneous injection. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) is a novel GLP-1 agonist. It is also a gastric inhibitory peptide, is FDA approved to treat type 2 DM, and is awaiting FDA approval as a weight loss medication.Tirzepatide causes substantial weight loss, similar to the effect of semaglutide.¹⁴

Semaglutide and weight loss

Semaglutide is approved by the FDA for chronic weight management as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity in adults with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² or ≥ 27 kg/m² in the presence of a weight-related comorbidity. It is also FDA approved to treat type 2 DM.

In a weight loss trial, 1,961 overweight and obese patients with a mean BMI of 38 kg/m², were randomly assigned to semaglutide or placebo treatment for 68 weeks. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. The mean changes in body weight for the patients in the semaglutide and placebo treatment groups were -14.9% and -2.4%, respectively. The treatment difference was -12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4% to -11.5%; P <.001). In this study, compared with placebo, semaglutide treatment resulted in a greater decrease in waist circumference, -5.3 in versus -1.6 in.¹⁵ A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of weight loss medicines indicates that semaglutide is the most effective medication currently FDA approved for weight loss, reliably producing substantial weight loss (FIGURE).⁹

obgm03507004_editorial_fig.jpg

In one randomized clinical trial, investigators directly compared the efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide in achieving weight loss. In this trial, 338 patients were assigned randomly to treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injection, liraglutide 3.0 mg daily subcutaneous injection, or placebo. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity.¹⁶ After 68 weeks of treatment, the mean weight changes were -15.8%, -6.4%, and -1.9% in the semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference between the semaglutide and liraglutide groups was -9.4% (95% CI, -12% to -6.8%; P <.001).¹⁶

Continue to: Semaglutide dose-escalation and contraindications...

For weight loss, the target dose of semaglutide is 2.4 mg once weekly subcutaneous injection achieved by sequential dose escalation. To give patients time to adjust to adverse effects caused by the medication, a standardized dose-escalation regimen is recommended. The FDA-approved escalation regimen for semaglutide treatment begins with a weekly subcutaneous dose of 0.25 mg for 4 weeks, followed by an increase in the weekly dosage every 4 weeks: 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 1.7 mg, and 2.4 mg.¹⁷ To support the dose-escalation process there are 5 unique autoinjectors that deliver the appropriate dose for the current step.

Semaglutide is contraindicated if the patient has an allergy to the medication or if there is a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer.¹⁷ In animal toxicology studies, semaglutide at clinically relevant dosing was associated with an increased risk of developing medullary thyroid cancer. Patients with a personal history of multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, (medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, and primary hyperparathyroidism) should not take semaglutide. Semaglutide may cause fetal harm and the FDA recommends discontinuing semaglutide at least 2 months before pregnancy.¹⁷ According to the FDA, the safety of semaglutide during breastfeeding has not been established. In Canada, breastfeeding is a contraindication to semaglutide treatment.¹⁸

Limitations of medication treatment of obesity

There are important limitations to semaglutide treatment of obesity, including:

• weight gain after stopping treatment
• limited medical insurance supportfor an expensive medication treatment
• bothersome adverse effects.

Weight gain posttreatment. After stopping medication treatment of obesity, weight gain occurs in most patients. However, patients may remain below baseline weight for a long time after stopping medication therapy. In one trial of 803 patients, after 20 weeks of semaglutide treatment (16-week dose-escalation phase, followed by 4 weeks on a weekly dose of 2.4 mg), the participants were randomized to 48 additional weeks of semaglutide or placebo.¹⁹ All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. At the initial 20 weeks of treatment time point the mean weight change was -10.6%. Over the following 48 weeks, the patients treated with semaglutidehad an additional mean weight change of -7.9%, while the mean weight change for the placebo group was +6.9%.

Medical insurance coverage. A major barrier to semaglutide treatment of obesity is the medication’s cost. At the website GoodRx (https://www.goodrx.com/), the estimated price for a 1-month supply of semaglutide (Wegovy) is $1,350.²⁰ By contrast, a 1-month supply of phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) is approximately $205. Currently, many medical insurance plans do not cover the cost of semaglutide treatment for weight loss. Patent protection for liraglutide may expire in the next few years, permitting the marketing of a lower-cost generic formulation, increasing the availability of the medication. However, as noted above, compared with liraglutide, semaglutide treatment results in much greater weight loss.

The most common adverse effects associated with semaglutide treatment are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. In one randomized clinical trial involving 1,961 patients, the frequency of adverse effects reported by patients taking semaglutide incrementally above the frequency of the same adverse effect reported by patients on placebo was: nausea (27%), vomiting (18%), diarrhea (16%), constipation (14%), dyspepsia (7%), and abdominal pain (5%).¹⁵ In this study, treatment was discontinued due to adverse effects in 7% and 3% of the patients in the semaglutide and placebo groups, respectively. Experts believe that adverse effects can be minimized by increasing the dose slowly and decreasing the dose if adverse effects are bothersome to the patient.

Measuring the benefits of semaglutide weight loss

Overweight and obesity are prevalent problems with many adverse consequences, including an increased risk of death. In population studies, weight loss following bariatric surgery is associated with a substantial reduction in mortality, cancer, and heart disease compared with conventional therapy.²¹ Over the next few years, the effect of semaglutide-induced weight loss on the rate of cancer and heart disease should become clear. If semaglutide treatment of obesity is associated with a reduction in cancer and heart disease, it would be a truly breakthrough medication. ●

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines the problem as weight that is higher than what is healthy for a given height, with quantitative definitions of overweight and obesity as body mass indices (BMIs) of 25 to 29.9 kg/m² and ≥ 30 kg/m², respectively.¹ The prevalence of obesity among adults in 2017 ̶ 2018 was reported by the CDC to be 42.4%.² Among women, the reported prevalence of obesity was lowest among Asian individuals (17.2%) and greatest among non-Hispanic Black individuals (56.9%), with White (39.8%) and Hispanic individuals (43.7%) having rates in between.² In a meta-analysis of prospective studies that included 4 million people who were never smokers and had no chronic disease at baseline, age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates were studied over a median of 14 years of follow-up.³ Compared with those with a BMI of 20 to 25 kg/m², people with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m² or a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m² had increased risks of death of 46% and 94%, respectively, demonstrating that obesity increases this risk.³

The increased risk of death associated with obesity is caused by obesity-related diseases that cause early mortality, including diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, and venous thromboembolic events.⁴ Obesity is also associated with an increased risk of many cancers, including cancer of the endometrium, kidney, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, gallbladder, pancreas, liver, and breast.⁵ With regard to gynecologic disease, obesity is associated with an increased risk of fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding.⁶ For pregnant patients, obesity is associated with increased risks of⁷:

• miscarriage and stillbirth
• preeclampsia and gestational hypertension
• gestational diabetes
• severe maternal morbidity
• postterm pregnancy
• venous thromboembolism
• endometritis.

For obese patients, weight loss can normalize blood pressure, reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, decrease the risk of cancer, and cure type 2 DM.⁸

Bariatric surgery: The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss

All patients with obesity should be counseled to reduce caloric intake and increase physical activity. Dietary counseling provided by a nutritionist may help reinforce advice given by a provider. However, lifestyle interventions are associated with modest weight loss (<5% of bodyweight; FIGURE).⁹ The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss is bariatric surgery.

In the Swedish Obese Subjects study, involving 2,010 people, following bariatric surgery the mean decrease in bodyweight was 23% at 2 years, with a slow increase in weight thereafter, resulting in a sustained mean weight loss of 18% at 10 years.⁸ In this study, people in the diet and exercise control group had no change in bodyweight over 10 years of follow-up.⁸ Not all eligible obese patients want to undergo bariatric surgery because it is an arduous sequential process involving 6 months of intensive preoperative preparation, bariatric surgery, recovery, and intensive postoperative follow-up. The perioperative mortality rate is 0.03% to 0.2%.¹⁰ Following bariatric surgery, additional operations may be necessary for more than 10% of patients.¹⁰ With recent breakthroughs in the medication management of obesity, patients who do not want bariatric surgery can achieve reliable weight loss of greater than 10% of body weight with glucagon-like peptide -1 (GLP-1) agonists.

obgm03507004_editorial_570x300.jpg

GLP-1 agonist analogues: Practice-changing breakthrough in medication treatment

GLP-1, a 30 amino acid peptide, is produced by intestinal enteroendocrine cells and neurons in the medulla and hypothalamus.¹¹ GLP-1 reduces hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing daily food intake.¹² GLP-1 also enhances the secretion of insulin, making GLP-1 agonists an effective treatment for type 2 DM. In humans and experimental animals, the administration of exogenous GLP-1 agonists decreases hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing food intake, resulting in weight loss.¹² The synthetic GLP-1 agonists, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as anti-obesity medications.

Native GLP-1 has a short circulating half-life of approximately 2 minutes. The synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications liraglutide and semaglutide are modified to significantly increase their half-life. Liraglutide is a modified version of GLP-1 with a palmitic acid side chain and an amino acid spacer resulting in reduced degradation and a 15-hour half-life, necessitating daily administration. Semaglutide has a steric acid diacid at Lys26, a large synthetic spacer, a modification of amino acid 8 with the addition of α-aminobutyric acid and a 165-hour half-life, permitting weekly administration.¹³ For weight loss, liraglutide and semaglultide are administered by subcutaneous injection. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) is a novel GLP-1 agonist. It is also a gastric inhibitory peptide, is FDA approved to treat type 2 DM, and is awaiting FDA approval as a weight loss medication.Tirzepatide causes substantial weight loss, similar to the effect of semaglutide.¹⁴

Semaglutide and weight loss

Semaglutide is approved by the FDA for chronic weight management as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity in adults with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² or ≥ 27 kg/m² in the presence of a weight-related comorbidity. It is also FDA approved to treat type 2 DM.

In a weight loss trial, 1,961 overweight and obese patients with a mean BMI of 38 kg/m², were randomly assigned to semaglutide or placebo treatment for 68 weeks. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. The mean changes in body weight for the patients in the semaglutide and placebo treatment groups were -14.9% and -2.4%, respectively. The treatment difference was -12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4% to -11.5%; P <.001). In this study, compared with placebo, semaglutide treatment resulted in a greater decrease in waist circumference, -5.3 in versus -1.6 in.¹⁵ A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of weight loss medicines indicates that semaglutide is the most effective medication currently FDA approved for weight loss, reliably producing substantial weight loss (FIGURE).⁹

obgm03507004_editorial_fig.jpg

In one randomized clinical trial, investigators directly compared the efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide in achieving weight loss. In this trial, 338 patients were assigned randomly to treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injection, liraglutide 3.0 mg daily subcutaneous injection, or placebo. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity.¹⁶ After 68 weeks of treatment, the mean weight changes were -15.8%, -6.4%, and -1.9% in the semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference between the semaglutide and liraglutide groups was -9.4% (95% CI, -12% to -6.8%; P <.001).¹⁶

Continue to: Semaglutide dose-escalation and contraindications...

For weight loss, the target dose of semaglutide is 2.4 mg once weekly subcutaneous injection achieved by sequential dose escalation. To give patients time to adjust to adverse effects caused by the medication, a standardized dose-escalation regimen is recommended. The FDA-approved escalation regimen for semaglutide treatment begins with a weekly subcutaneous dose of 0.25 mg for 4 weeks, followed by an increase in the weekly dosage every 4 weeks: 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 1.7 mg, and 2.4 mg.¹⁷ To support the dose-escalation process there are 5 unique autoinjectors that deliver the appropriate dose for the current step.

Semaglutide is contraindicated if the patient has an allergy to the medication or if there is a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer.¹⁷ In animal toxicology studies, semaglutide at clinically relevant dosing was associated with an increased risk of developing medullary thyroid cancer. Patients with a personal history of multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, (medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, and primary hyperparathyroidism) should not take semaglutide. Semaglutide may cause fetal harm and the FDA recommends discontinuing semaglutide at least 2 months before pregnancy.¹⁷ According to the FDA, the safety of semaglutide during breastfeeding has not been established. In Canada, breastfeeding is a contraindication to semaglutide treatment.¹⁸

Limitations of medication treatment of obesity

There are important limitations to semaglutide treatment of obesity, including:

• weight gain after stopping treatment
• limited medical insurance supportfor an expensive medication treatment
• bothersome adverse effects.

Weight gain posttreatment. After stopping medication treatment of obesity, weight gain occurs in most patients. However, patients may remain below baseline weight for a long time after stopping medication therapy. In one trial of 803 patients, after 20 weeks of semaglutide treatment (16-week dose-escalation phase, followed by 4 weeks on a weekly dose of 2.4 mg), the participants were randomized to 48 additional weeks of semaglutide or placebo.¹⁹ All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. At the initial 20 weeks of treatment time point the mean weight change was -10.6%. Over the following 48 weeks, the patients treated with semaglutidehad an additional mean weight change of -7.9%, while the mean weight change for the placebo group was +6.9%.

Medical insurance coverage. A major barrier to semaglutide treatment of obesity is the medication’s cost. At the website GoodRx (https://www.goodrx.com/), the estimated price for a 1-month supply of semaglutide (Wegovy) is $1,350.²⁰ By contrast, a 1-month supply of phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) is approximately $205. Currently, many medical insurance plans do not cover the cost of semaglutide treatment for weight loss. Patent protection for liraglutide may expire in the next few years, permitting the marketing of a lower-cost generic formulation, increasing the availability of the medication. However, as noted above, compared with liraglutide, semaglutide treatment results in much greater weight loss.

The most common adverse effects associated with semaglutide treatment are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. In one randomized clinical trial involving 1,961 patients, the frequency of adverse effects reported by patients taking semaglutide incrementally above the frequency of the same adverse effect reported by patients on placebo was: nausea (27%), vomiting (18%), diarrhea (16%), constipation (14%), dyspepsia (7%), and abdominal pain (5%).¹⁵ In this study, treatment was discontinued due to adverse effects in 7% and 3% of the patients in the semaglutide and placebo groups, respectively. Experts believe that adverse effects can be minimized by increasing the dose slowly and decreasing the dose if adverse effects are bothersome to the patient.

Measuring the benefits of semaglutide weight loss

Overweight and obesity are prevalent problems with many adverse consequences, including an increased risk of death. In population studies, weight loss following bariatric surgery is associated with a substantial reduction in mortality, cancer, and heart disease compared with conventional therapy.²¹ Over the next few years, the effect of semaglutide-induced weight loss on the rate of cancer and heart disease should become clear. If semaglutide treatment of obesity is associated with a reduction in cancer and heart disease, it would be a truly breakthrough medication. ●

Obesity is a major health problem in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines the problem as weight that is higher than what is healthy for a given height, with quantitative definitions of overweight and obesity as body mass indices (BMIs) of 25 to 29.9 kg/m² and ≥ 30 kg/m², respectively.¹ The prevalence of obesity among adults in 2017 ̶ 2018 was reported by the CDC to be 42.4%.² Among women, the reported prevalence of obesity was lowest among Asian individuals (17.2%) and greatest among non-Hispanic Black individuals (56.9%), with White (39.8%) and Hispanic individuals (43.7%) having rates in between.² In a meta-analysis of prospective studies that included 4 million people who were never smokers and had no chronic disease at baseline, age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates were studied over a median of 14 years of follow-up.³ Compared with those with a BMI of 20 to 25 kg/m², people with a BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m² or a BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m² had increased risks of death of 46% and 94%, respectively, demonstrating that obesity increases this risk.³

The increased risk of death associated with obesity is caused by obesity-related diseases that cause early mortality, including diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stroke, and venous thromboembolic events.⁴ Obesity is also associated with an increased risk of many cancers, including cancer of the endometrium, kidney, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, gallbladder, pancreas, liver, and breast.⁵ With regard to gynecologic disease, obesity is associated with an increased risk of fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding.⁶ For pregnant patients, obesity is associated with increased risks of⁷:

• miscarriage and stillbirth
• preeclampsia and gestational hypertension
• gestational diabetes
• severe maternal morbidity
• postterm pregnancy
• venous thromboembolism
• endometritis.

For obese patients, weight loss can normalize blood pressure, reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, decrease the risk of cancer, and cure type 2 DM.⁸

Bariatric surgery: The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss

All patients with obesity should be counseled to reduce caloric intake and increase physical activity. Dietary counseling provided by a nutritionist may help reinforce advice given by a provider. However, lifestyle interventions are associated with modest weight loss (<5% of bodyweight; FIGURE).⁹ The gold standard treatment for reliable and sustained weight loss is bariatric surgery.

In the Swedish Obese Subjects study, involving 2,010 people, following bariatric surgery the mean decrease in bodyweight was 23% at 2 years, with a slow increase in weight thereafter, resulting in a sustained mean weight loss of 18% at 10 years.⁸ In this study, people in the diet and exercise control group had no change in bodyweight over 10 years of follow-up.⁸ Not all eligible obese patients want to undergo bariatric surgery because it is an arduous sequential process involving 6 months of intensive preoperative preparation, bariatric surgery, recovery, and intensive postoperative follow-up. The perioperative mortality rate is 0.03% to 0.2%.¹⁰ Following bariatric surgery, additional operations may be necessary for more than 10% of patients.¹⁰ With recent breakthroughs in the medication management of obesity, patients who do not want bariatric surgery can achieve reliable weight loss of greater than 10% of body weight with glucagon-like peptide -1 (GLP-1) agonists.

obgm03507004_editorial_570x300.jpg

GLP-1 agonist analogues: Practice-changing breakthrough in medication treatment

GLP-1, a 30 amino acid peptide, is produced by intestinal enteroendocrine cells and neurons in the medulla and hypothalamus.¹¹ GLP-1 reduces hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing daily food intake.¹² GLP-1 also enhances the secretion of insulin, making GLP-1 agonists an effective treatment for type 2 DM. In humans and experimental animals, the administration of exogenous GLP-1 agonists decreases hunger cravings and causes satiety, reducing food intake, resulting in weight loss.¹² The synthetic GLP-1 agonists, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as anti-obesity medications.

Native GLP-1 has a short circulating half-life of approximately 2 minutes. The synthetic GLP-1 agonist medications liraglutide and semaglutide are modified to significantly increase their half-life. Liraglutide is a modified version of GLP-1 with a palmitic acid side chain and an amino acid spacer resulting in reduced degradation and a 15-hour half-life, necessitating daily administration. Semaglutide has a steric acid diacid at Lys26, a large synthetic spacer, a modification of amino acid 8 with the addition of α-aminobutyric acid and a 165-hour half-life, permitting weekly administration.¹³ For weight loss, liraglutide and semaglultide are administered by subcutaneous injection. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro) is a novel GLP-1 agonist. It is also a gastric inhibitory peptide, is FDA approved to treat type 2 DM, and is awaiting FDA approval as a weight loss medication.Tirzepatide causes substantial weight loss, similar to the effect of semaglutide.¹⁴

Semaglutide and weight loss

Semaglutide is approved by the FDA for chronic weight management as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity in adults with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² or ≥ 27 kg/m² in the presence of a weight-related comorbidity. It is also FDA approved to treat type 2 DM.

In a weight loss trial, 1,961 overweight and obese patients with a mean BMI of 38 kg/m², were randomly assigned to semaglutide or placebo treatment for 68 weeks. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. The mean changes in body weight for the patients in the semaglutide and placebo treatment groups were -14.9% and -2.4%, respectively. The treatment difference was -12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4% to -11.5%; P <.001). In this study, compared with placebo, semaglutide treatment resulted in a greater decrease in waist circumference, -5.3 in versus -1.6 in.¹⁵ A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of weight loss medicines indicates that semaglutide is the most effective medication currently FDA approved for weight loss, reliably producing substantial weight loss (FIGURE).⁹

obgm03507004_editorial_fig.jpg

In one randomized clinical trial, investigators directly compared the efficacy of semaglutide and liraglutide in achieving weight loss. In this trial, 338 patients were assigned randomly to treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injection, liraglutide 3.0 mg daily subcutaneous injection, or placebo. All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity.¹⁶ After 68 weeks of treatment, the mean weight changes were -15.8%, -6.4%, and -1.9% in the semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo groups, respectively. The difference between the semaglutide and liraglutide groups was -9.4% (95% CI, -12% to -6.8%; P <.001).¹⁶

Continue to: Semaglutide dose-escalation and contraindications...

For weight loss, the target dose of semaglutide is 2.4 mg once weekly subcutaneous injection achieved by sequential dose escalation. To give patients time to adjust to adverse effects caused by the medication, a standardized dose-escalation regimen is recommended. The FDA-approved escalation regimen for semaglutide treatment begins with a weekly subcutaneous dose of 0.25 mg for 4 weeks, followed by an increase in the weekly dosage every 4 weeks: 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, 1.7 mg, and 2.4 mg.¹⁷ To support the dose-escalation process there are 5 unique autoinjectors that deliver the appropriate dose for the current step.

Semaglutide is contraindicated if the patient has an allergy to the medication or if there is a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer.¹⁷ In animal toxicology studies, semaglutide at clinically relevant dosing was associated with an increased risk of developing medullary thyroid cancer. Patients with a personal history of multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, (medullary thyroid cancer, pheochromocytoma, and primary hyperparathyroidism) should not take semaglutide. Semaglutide may cause fetal harm and the FDA recommends discontinuing semaglutide at least 2 months before pregnancy.¹⁷ According to the FDA, the safety of semaglutide during breastfeeding has not been established. In Canada, breastfeeding is a contraindication to semaglutide treatment.¹⁸

Limitations of medication treatment of obesity

There are important limitations to semaglutide treatment of obesity, including:

• weight gain after stopping treatment
• limited medical insurance supportfor an expensive medication treatment
• bothersome adverse effects.

Weight gain posttreatment. After stopping medication treatment of obesity, weight gain occurs in most patients. However, patients may remain below baseline weight for a long time after stopping medication therapy. In one trial of 803 patients, after 20 weeks of semaglutide treatment (16-week dose-escalation phase, followed by 4 weeks on a weekly dose of 2.4 mg), the participants were randomized to 48 additional weeks of semaglutide or placebo.¹⁹ All the participants were following a regimen that included a calorie-reduced diet and increased physical activity. At the initial 20 weeks of treatment time point the mean weight change was -10.6%. Over the following 48 weeks, the patients treated with semaglutidehad an additional mean weight change of -7.9%, while the mean weight change for the placebo group was +6.9%.

Medical insurance coverage. A major barrier to semaglutide treatment of obesity is the medication’s cost. At the website GoodRx (https://www.goodrx.com/), the estimated price for a 1-month supply of semaglutide (Wegovy) is $1,350.²⁰ By contrast, a 1-month supply of phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) is approximately $205. Currently, many medical insurance plans do not cover the cost of semaglutide treatment for weight loss. Patent protection for liraglutide may expire in the next few years, permitting the marketing of a lower-cost generic formulation, increasing the availability of the medication. However, as noted above, compared with liraglutide, semaglutide treatment results in much greater weight loss.

The most common adverse effects associated with semaglutide treatment are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. In one randomized clinical trial involving 1,961 patients, the frequency of adverse effects reported by patients taking semaglutide incrementally above the frequency of the same adverse effect reported by patients on placebo was: nausea (27%), vomiting (18%), diarrhea (16%), constipation (14%), dyspepsia (7%), and abdominal pain (5%).¹⁵ In this study, treatment was discontinued due to adverse effects in 7% and 3% of the patients in the semaglutide and placebo groups, respectively. Experts believe that adverse effects can be minimized by increasing the dose slowly and decreasing the dose if adverse effects are bothersome to the patient.

Measuring the benefits of semaglutide weight loss

Overweight and obesity are prevalent problems with many adverse consequences, including an increased risk of death. In population studies, weight loss following bariatric surgery is associated with a substantial reduction in mortality, cancer, and heart disease compared with conventional therapy.²¹ Over the next few years, the effect of semaglutide-induced weight loss on the rate of cancer and heart disease should become clear. If semaglutide treatment of obesity is associated with a reduction in cancer and heart disease, it would be a truly breakthrough medication. ●

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) for moderate and severe neonatal encephalopathy has been shown to reduce the risk of newborn death, major neurodevelopmental disability, developmental delay, and cerebral palsy.¹ It is estimated that 8 newborns with moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy need to be treated with TH to prevent 1 case of cerebral palsy.¹ The key elements of TH include:

• initiate hypothermia within 6 hoursof birth
• cool the newborn to a core temperature of 33.5˚ C to 34.5˚ C (92.3˚ F to 94.1˚ F) for 72 hours
• obtain brain ultrasonography to assess for intracranial hemorrhage
• obtain sequential MRI studies to assess brain structure and function
• initiate EEG monitoring for seizure activity.

During hypothermia the newborn is sedated, and oral feedings are reduced. During TH, important physiological goals are to maintain normal oxygenation, blood pressure, fluid balance, and glucose levels.^1,2

TH: The basics

Most of the major published randomized clinical trials used the following inclusion criteria to initiate TH²:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 35 weeks
• neonate is within 6 hours of birth
• an Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation at birth or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or the presence of seizures
• absence of recognizable congenital abnormalities at birth.

However, in some institutions, expert neonatologists have developed more liberal criteria for the initiation of TH, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. These more inclusive criteria, which will result in more newborns being treated with TH, include^3:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 34 weeks
• neonate is within 12 hours of birth
• a sentinel event at birth or Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1 or postnatal cardiopulmonary failure
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or concern for the presence of seizures.

Birth at a gestational age ≤ 34 weeks is a contraindication to TH. Relative contraindications to initiation of TH include: birth weight < 1,750 g, severe congenital anomaly, major genetic disorders, known severe metabolic disorders, major intracranial hemorrhage, severe septicemia, and uncorrectable coagulopathy.³ Adverse outcomes of TH include thrombocytopenia, cardiac arrythmia, and fat necrosis.⁴

Diagnosing neonatal encephalopathy

Neonatal encephalopathy is a clinical diagnosis, defined as abnormal neurologic function in the first few days of life in an infant born at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation. It is divided into 3 categories: mild (Stage 1), moderate (Stage 2), and severe (Stage 3).^5,6 Institutions vary in the criteria used to differentiate mild from moderate neonatal encephalopathy, the two most frequent forms of encephalopathy. Newborns with mild encephalopathy are not routinely treated with TH because TH has not been shown to be helpful in this setting. Institutions with liberal criteria for diagnosing moderate encephalopathy will initiate TH in more cases. Involvement of a pediatric neurologist in the diagnosis of moderate encephalopathy may help confirm the diagnosis made by the primary neonatologist and provide an independent, second opinion about whether the newborn should be diagnosed with mild or moderate encephalopathy, a clinically important distinction. Physical examination and EEG findings associated with cases of mild, moderate, and severe encephalopathy are presented in TABLE 1.⁷

obgm03506012_barbieri_table1.jpg

Continue: Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy...

Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy

In a retrospective case-control study that included 405 newborns at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestational age with neonatal encephalopathy thought to be due to hypoxia, 8 obstetric factors were identified as being associated with an increased risk of neonatal encephalopathy, including (TABLE 2)⁸:

1. an obstetric sentinel event (uterine rupture, placental abruption, umbilical cord prolapse, maternal collapse, or severe fetal bleeding)

2. shoulder dystocia

3. abnormal cardiotocogram (persistent late or variable decelerations, fetal bradycardia, and/or absent or minimal fetal heart variability)

4. failed vacuum delivery

5. prolonged rupture of the membranes (> 24 hours)

6. tight nuchal cord

7. gestational age at birth > 41 weeks

8. thick meconium. 

obgm03506012_barbieri_table2.jpg

Genetic causes of neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy

Many neonatologists practice with the belief that for a newborn with encephalopathy in the setting of a sentinel labor event, a low Apgar score at 5 minutes, an umbilical cord artery pH < 7.00, and/or an elevated lactate level, the diagnosis of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is warranted. However, there are many causes of neonatal encephalopathy not related to intrapartum events. For example, neonatal encephalopathy and seizures may be caused by infectious, vascular, metabolic, medications, or congenital problems.¹⁰

There are genetic disorders that can be associated with both neonatal seizures and encephalopathy, suggesting that in some cases the primary cause of the encephalopathy is a genetic problem, not management of labor. Mutations in the potassium channel and sodium channel genes are well recognized causes of neonatal seizures.^11,12 Cerebral palsy, a childhood outcome that may follow neonatal encephalopathy, also has numerous etiologies, including genetic causes. Among 1,345 children with cerebral palsy referred for exome sequencing, investigators reported that a genetic abnormality was identified in 33% of the cases.¹³ Mutations in 86 genes were identified in multiple children. Similar results have been reported in other cohorts.^14-16 Maintaining an open mind about the causes of a case of neonatal encephalopathy and not jumping to a conclusion before completing an evaluation is an optimal approach.

Parent’s evolving emotional and intellectual reaction to the initiation of TH

Initiation of TH for a newborn with encephalopathy catalyzes parents to wonder, “How did my baby develop an encephalopathy?”, “Did my obstetrician’s management of labor and delivery contribute to the outcome?” and “What is the prognosis for my baby?” These are difficult questions with high emotional valence for both patients and clinicians. Obstetricians and neonatologists should collaborate to provide consistent responses to these questions.

The presence of a low umbilical cord artery pH and high lactate in combination with a low Apgar score at 5 minutes may lead the neonatologist to diagnose hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in the medical record. The diagnosis of brain hypoxia and ischemia in a newborn may be interpreted by parents as meaning that labor events caused or contributed to the encephalopathy. During the 72 hours of TH, the newborn is sedated and separated from the parents, causing additional emotional stress and uncertainty. When a baby is transferred from a community hospital to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a tertiary center, the parents may be geographically separated from their baby during a critical period of time, adding to their anxiety. At some point during the care process most newborns treated with TH will have an EEG, brain ultrasound, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These data will be discussed with the parent(s) and may cause confusion and additional stress.

The optimal approach to communicating with parents whose newborn is treated with TH continues to evolve. Best practices may include^17-20:

• in-person, regular multidisciplinary family meetings with the parents, including neonatologists, obstetricians, social service specialists and mental health experts when possible
• providing emotional support to parents, recognizing the psychological trauma of the clinical events
• encouraging parents to have physical contact with the newborn during TH
• elevating the role of the parents in the care process by having them participate in care events such as diapering the newborn
• ensuring that clinicians do not blame other clinicians for the clinical outcome
• communicating the results and interpretation of advanced physiological monitoring and imaging studies, with an emphasis on clarity, recognizing the limitations of the studies
• providing educational materials for parents about TH, early intervention programs, and support resources.

Coordinated and consistent communication with the parents is often difficult to facilitate due to many factors, including the unique perspectives and vocabularies of clinicians from different specialties and the difficulty of coordinating communications with all those involved over multiple shifts and sites of care. In terms of vocabulary, neonatologists are comfortable with making a diagnosis of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in a newborn, but obstetricians would prefer that neonatologists use the more generic diagnosis of encephalopathy, holding judgment on the cause until additional data are available. In terms of coordinating communication over multiple shifts and sites of care, interactions between an obstetrician and their patient typically occurs in the postpartum unit, while interactions between neonatologists and parents occur in the NICU.

Parents of a baby with neonatal encephalopathy undergoing TH may have numerous traumatic experiences during the care process. For weeks or months after birth, they may recall or dream about the absence of sounds from their newborn at birth, the resuscitation events including chest compressions and intubation, the shivering of the baby during TH, and the jarring pivot from the expectation of holding and bonding with a healthy newborn to the reality of a sick newborn requiring intensive care. Obstetricians are also traumatized by these events and support from peers and mental health experts may help them recognize, explore, and adapt to the trauma. Neonatologists believe that TH can help improve the childhood outcomes of newborns with encephalopathy, a goal endorsed by all clinicians and family members. ●

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) for moderate and severe neonatal encephalopathy has been shown to reduce the risk of newborn death, major neurodevelopmental disability, developmental delay, and cerebral palsy.¹ It is estimated that 8 newborns with moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy need to be treated with TH to prevent 1 case of cerebral palsy.¹ The key elements of TH include:

• initiate hypothermia within 6 hoursof birth
• cool the newborn to a core temperature of 33.5˚ C to 34.5˚ C (92.3˚ F to 94.1˚ F) for 72 hours
• obtain brain ultrasonography to assess for intracranial hemorrhage
• obtain sequential MRI studies to assess brain structure and function
• initiate EEG monitoring for seizure activity.

During hypothermia the newborn is sedated, and oral feedings are reduced. During TH, important physiological goals are to maintain normal oxygenation, blood pressure, fluid balance, and glucose levels.^1,2

TH: The basics

Most of the major published randomized clinical trials used the following inclusion criteria to initiate TH²:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 35 weeks
• neonate is within 6 hours of birth
• an Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation at birth or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or the presence of seizures
• absence of recognizable congenital abnormalities at birth.

However, in some institutions, expert neonatologists have developed more liberal criteria for the initiation of TH, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. These more inclusive criteria, which will result in more newborns being treated with TH, include^3:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 34 weeks
• neonate is within 12 hours of birth
• a sentinel event at birth or Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1 or postnatal cardiopulmonary failure
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or concern for the presence of seizures.

Birth at a gestational age ≤ 34 weeks is a contraindication to TH. Relative contraindications to initiation of TH include: birth weight < 1,750 g, severe congenital anomaly, major genetic disorders, known severe metabolic disorders, major intracranial hemorrhage, severe septicemia, and uncorrectable coagulopathy.³ Adverse outcomes of TH include thrombocytopenia, cardiac arrythmia, and fat necrosis.⁴

Diagnosing neonatal encephalopathy

Neonatal encephalopathy is a clinical diagnosis, defined as abnormal neurologic function in the first few days of life in an infant born at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation. It is divided into 3 categories: mild (Stage 1), moderate (Stage 2), and severe (Stage 3).^5,6 Institutions vary in the criteria used to differentiate mild from moderate neonatal encephalopathy, the two most frequent forms of encephalopathy. Newborns with mild encephalopathy are not routinely treated with TH because TH has not been shown to be helpful in this setting. Institutions with liberal criteria for diagnosing moderate encephalopathy will initiate TH in more cases. Involvement of a pediatric neurologist in the diagnosis of moderate encephalopathy may help confirm the diagnosis made by the primary neonatologist and provide an independent, second opinion about whether the newborn should be diagnosed with mild or moderate encephalopathy, a clinically important distinction. Physical examination and EEG findings associated with cases of mild, moderate, and severe encephalopathy are presented in TABLE 1.⁷

obgm03506012_barbieri_table1.jpg

Continue: Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy...

Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy

In a retrospective case-control study that included 405 newborns at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestational age with neonatal encephalopathy thought to be due to hypoxia, 8 obstetric factors were identified as being associated with an increased risk of neonatal encephalopathy, including (TABLE 2)⁸:

1. an obstetric sentinel event (uterine rupture, placental abruption, umbilical cord prolapse, maternal collapse, or severe fetal bleeding)

2. shoulder dystocia

3. abnormal cardiotocogram (persistent late or variable decelerations, fetal bradycardia, and/or absent or minimal fetal heart variability)

4. failed vacuum delivery

5. prolonged rupture of the membranes (> 24 hours)

6. tight nuchal cord

7. gestational age at birth > 41 weeks

8. thick meconium. 

obgm03506012_barbieri_table2.jpg

Genetic causes of neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy

Many neonatologists practice with the belief that for a newborn with encephalopathy in the setting of a sentinel labor event, a low Apgar score at 5 minutes, an umbilical cord artery pH < 7.00, and/or an elevated lactate level, the diagnosis of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is warranted. However, there are many causes of neonatal encephalopathy not related to intrapartum events. For example, neonatal encephalopathy and seizures may be caused by infectious, vascular, metabolic, medications, or congenital problems.¹⁰

There are genetic disorders that can be associated with both neonatal seizures and encephalopathy, suggesting that in some cases the primary cause of the encephalopathy is a genetic problem, not management of labor. Mutations in the potassium channel and sodium channel genes are well recognized causes of neonatal seizures.^11,12 Cerebral palsy, a childhood outcome that may follow neonatal encephalopathy, also has numerous etiologies, including genetic causes. Among 1,345 children with cerebral palsy referred for exome sequencing, investigators reported that a genetic abnormality was identified in 33% of the cases.¹³ Mutations in 86 genes were identified in multiple children. Similar results have been reported in other cohorts.^14-16 Maintaining an open mind about the causes of a case of neonatal encephalopathy and not jumping to a conclusion before completing an evaluation is an optimal approach.

Parent’s evolving emotional and intellectual reaction to the initiation of TH

Initiation of TH for a newborn with encephalopathy catalyzes parents to wonder, “How did my baby develop an encephalopathy?”, “Did my obstetrician’s management of labor and delivery contribute to the outcome?” and “What is the prognosis for my baby?” These are difficult questions with high emotional valence for both patients and clinicians. Obstetricians and neonatologists should collaborate to provide consistent responses to these questions.

The presence of a low umbilical cord artery pH and high lactate in combination with a low Apgar score at 5 minutes may lead the neonatologist to diagnose hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in the medical record. The diagnosis of brain hypoxia and ischemia in a newborn may be interpreted by parents as meaning that labor events caused or contributed to the encephalopathy. During the 72 hours of TH, the newborn is sedated and separated from the parents, causing additional emotional stress and uncertainty. When a baby is transferred from a community hospital to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a tertiary center, the parents may be geographically separated from their baby during a critical period of time, adding to their anxiety. At some point during the care process most newborns treated with TH will have an EEG, brain ultrasound, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These data will be discussed with the parent(s) and may cause confusion and additional stress.

The optimal approach to communicating with parents whose newborn is treated with TH continues to evolve. Best practices may include^17-20:

• in-person, regular multidisciplinary family meetings with the parents, including neonatologists, obstetricians, social service specialists and mental health experts when possible
• providing emotional support to parents, recognizing the psychological trauma of the clinical events
• encouraging parents to have physical contact with the newborn during TH
• elevating the role of the parents in the care process by having them participate in care events such as diapering the newborn
• ensuring that clinicians do not blame other clinicians for the clinical outcome
• communicating the results and interpretation of advanced physiological monitoring and imaging studies, with an emphasis on clarity, recognizing the limitations of the studies
• providing educational materials for parents about TH, early intervention programs, and support resources.

Coordinated and consistent communication with the parents is often difficult to facilitate due to many factors, including the unique perspectives and vocabularies of clinicians from different specialties and the difficulty of coordinating communications with all those involved over multiple shifts and sites of care. In terms of vocabulary, neonatologists are comfortable with making a diagnosis of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in a newborn, but obstetricians would prefer that neonatologists use the more generic diagnosis of encephalopathy, holding judgment on the cause until additional data are available. In terms of coordinating communication over multiple shifts and sites of care, interactions between an obstetrician and their patient typically occurs in the postpartum unit, while interactions between neonatologists and parents occur in the NICU.

Parents of a baby with neonatal encephalopathy undergoing TH may have numerous traumatic experiences during the care process. For weeks or months after birth, they may recall or dream about the absence of sounds from their newborn at birth, the resuscitation events including chest compressions and intubation, the shivering of the baby during TH, and the jarring pivot from the expectation of holding and bonding with a healthy newborn to the reality of a sick newborn requiring intensive care. Obstetricians are also traumatized by these events and support from peers and mental health experts may help them recognize, explore, and adapt to the trauma. Neonatologists believe that TH can help improve the childhood outcomes of newborns with encephalopathy, a goal endorsed by all clinicians and family members. ●

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) for moderate and severe neonatal encephalopathy has been shown to reduce the risk of newborn death, major neurodevelopmental disability, developmental delay, and cerebral palsy.¹ It is estimated that 8 newborns with moderate or severe neonatal encephalopathy need to be treated with TH to prevent 1 case of cerebral palsy.¹ The key elements of TH include:

• initiate hypothermia within 6 hoursof birth
• cool the newborn to a core temperature of 33.5˚ C to 34.5˚ C (92.3˚ F to 94.1˚ F) for 72 hours
• obtain brain ultrasonography to assess for intracranial hemorrhage
• obtain sequential MRI studies to assess brain structure and function
• initiate EEG monitoring for seizure activity.

During hypothermia the newborn is sedated, and oral feedings are reduced. During TH, important physiological goals are to maintain normal oxygenation, blood pressure, fluid balance, and glucose levels.^1,2

TH: The basics

Most of the major published randomized clinical trials used the following inclusion criteria to initiate TH²:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 35 weeks
• neonate is within 6 hours of birth
• an Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation at birth or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or the presence of seizures
• absence of recognizable congenital abnormalities at birth.

However, in some institutions, expert neonatologists have developed more liberal criteria for the initiation of TH, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. These more inclusive criteria, which will result in more newborns being treated with TH, include^3:

• gestational age at birth of ≥ 34 weeks
• neonate is within 12 hours of birth
• a sentinel event at birth or Apgar score ≤ 5 at 10 minutes of life or prolonged resuscitation or umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 or neonatal blood gas within 60 minutes of life < 7.1 or postnatal cardiopulmonary failure
• moderate to severe encephalopathy or concern for the presence of seizures.

Birth at a gestational age ≤ 34 weeks is a contraindication to TH. Relative contraindications to initiation of TH include: birth weight < 1,750 g, severe congenital anomaly, major genetic disorders, known severe metabolic disorders, major intracranial hemorrhage, severe septicemia, and uncorrectable coagulopathy.³ Adverse outcomes of TH include thrombocytopenia, cardiac arrythmia, and fat necrosis.⁴

Diagnosing neonatal encephalopathy

Neonatal encephalopathy is a clinical diagnosis, defined as abnormal neurologic function in the first few days of life in an infant born at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestation. It is divided into 3 categories: mild (Stage 1), moderate (Stage 2), and severe (Stage 3).^5,6 Institutions vary in the criteria used to differentiate mild from moderate neonatal encephalopathy, the two most frequent forms of encephalopathy. Newborns with mild encephalopathy are not routinely treated with TH because TH has not been shown to be helpful in this setting. Institutions with liberal criteria for diagnosing moderate encephalopathy will initiate TH in more cases. Involvement of a pediatric neurologist in the diagnosis of moderate encephalopathy may help confirm the diagnosis made by the primary neonatologist and provide an independent, second opinion about whether the newborn should be diagnosed with mild or moderate encephalopathy, a clinically important distinction. Physical examination and EEG findings associated with cases of mild, moderate, and severe encephalopathy are presented in TABLE 1.⁷

obgm03506012_barbieri_table1.jpg

Continue: Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy...

Obstetric factors that may be associated with neonatal encephalopathy

In a retrospective case-control study that included 405 newborns at ≥ 35 weeks’ gestational age with neonatal encephalopathy thought to be due to hypoxia, 8 obstetric factors were identified as being associated with an increased risk of neonatal encephalopathy, including (TABLE 2)⁸:

1. an obstetric sentinel event (uterine rupture, placental abruption, umbilical cord prolapse, maternal collapse, or severe fetal bleeding)

2. shoulder dystocia

3. abnormal cardiotocogram (persistent late or variable decelerations, fetal bradycardia, and/or absent or minimal fetal heart variability)

4. failed vacuum delivery

5. prolonged rupture of the membranes (> 24 hours)

6. tight nuchal cord

7. gestational age at birth > 41 weeks

8. thick meconium. 

obgm03506012_barbieri_table2.jpg

Genetic causes of neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy

Many neonatologists practice with the belief that for a newborn with encephalopathy in the setting of a sentinel labor event, a low Apgar score at 5 minutes, an umbilical cord artery pH < 7.00, and/or an elevated lactate level, the diagnosis of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy is warranted. However, there are many causes of neonatal encephalopathy not related to intrapartum events. For example, neonatal encephalopathy and seizures may be caused by infectious, vascular, metabolic, medications, or congenital problems.¹⁰

There are genetic disorders that can be associated with both neonatal seizures and encephalopathy, suggesting that in some cases the primary cause of the encephalopathy is a genetic problem, not management of labor. Mutations in the potassium channel and sodium channel genes are well recognized causes of neonatal seizures.^11,12 Cerebral palsy, a childhood outcome that may follow neonatal encephalopathy, also has numerous etiologies, including genetic causes. Among 1,345 children with cerebral palsy referred for exome sequencing, investigators reported that a genetic abnormality was identified in 33% of the cases.¹³ Mutations in 86 genes were identified in multiple children. Similar results have been reported in other cohorts.^14-16 Maintaining an open mind about the causes of a case of neonatal encephalopathy and not jumping to a conclusion before completing an evaluation is an optimal approach.

Parent’s evolving emotional and intellectual reaction to the initiation of TH

Initiation of TH for a newborn with encephalopathy catalyzes parents to wonder, “How did my baby develop an encephalopathy?”, “Did my obstetrician’s management of labor and delivery contribute to the outcome?” and “What is the prognosis for my baby?” These are difficult questions with high emotional valence for both patients and clinicians. Obstetricians and neonatologists should collaborate to provide consistent responses to these questions.

The presence of a low umbilical cord artery pH and high lactate in combination with a low Apgar score at 5 minutes may lead the neonatologist to diagnose hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in the medical record. The diagnosis of brain hypoxia and ischemia in a newborn may be interpreted by parents as meaning that labor events caused or contributed to the encephalopathy. During the 72 hours of TH, the newborn is sedated and separated from the parents, causing additional emotional stress and uncertainty. When a baby is transferred from a community hospital to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a tertiary center, the parents may be geographically separated from their baby during a critical period of time, adding to their anxiety. At some point during the care process most newborns treated with TH will have an EEG, brain ultrasound, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These data will be discussed with the parent(s) and may cause confusion and additional stress.

The optimal approach to communicating with parents whose newborn is treated with TH continues to evolve. Best practices may include^17-20:

• in-person, regular multidisciplinary family meetings with the parents, including neonatologists, obstetricians, social service specialists and mental health experts when possible
• providing emotional support to parents, recognizing the psychological trauma of the clinical events
• encouraging parents to have physical contact with the newborn during TH
• elevating the role of the parents in the care process by having them participate in care events such as diapering the newborn
• ensuring that clinicians do not blame other clinicians for the clinical outcome
• communicating the results and interpretation of advanced physiological monitoring and imaging studies, with an emphasis on clarity, recognizing the limitations of the studies
• providing educational materials for parents about TH, early intervention programs, and support resources.

Coordinated and consistent communication with the parents is often difficult to facilitate due to many factors, including the unique perspectives and vocabularies of clinicians from different specialties and the difficulty of coordinating communications with all those involved over multiple shifts and sites of care. In terms of vocabulary, neonatologists are comfortable with making a diagnosis of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in a newborn, but obstetricians would prefer that neonatologists use the more generic diagnosis of encephalopathy, holding judgment on the cause until additional data are available. In terms of coordinating communication over multiple shifts and sites of care, interactions between an obstetrician and their patient typically occurs in the postpartum unit, while interactions between neonatologists and parents occur in the NICU.

Parents of a baby with neonatal encephalopathy undergoing TH may have numerous traumatic experiences during the care process. For weeks or months after birth, they may recall or dream about the absence of sounds from their newborn at birth, the resuscitation events including chest compressions and intubation, the shivering of the baby during TH, and the jarring pivot from the expectation of holding and bonding with a healthy newborn to the reality of a sick newborn requiring intensive care. Obstetricians are also traumatized by these events and support from peers and mental health experts may help them recognize, explore, and adapt to the trauma. Neonatologists believe that TH can help improve the childhood outcomes of newborns with encephalopathy, a goal endorsed by all clinicians and family members. ●

The advent of unprecedented technologies drastically altering the behavior of children and adolescents, compounded by prolonged isolation from a once-in-a-century pandemic, may have negatively impacted the normal connectivity of the human brain among youth, leading to the current alarming increase of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among this population.

The human brain is comprised of multiple large-scale networks that are functionally connected and control feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. As clinical neuroscientists, psychiatrists must consider the profound impact of a massive societal shift in human behavior on the functional connectivity of brain networks in health and disease. The advent of smartphones, social media, and video game addiction may have disrupted the developing brain networks in children and adolescents, leading to the current escalating epidemic of mental disorders in youth.

The major networks in the human brain include the default mode network (DMN), the salience network, the limbic system, the dorsal attention network, the central executive network, and the visual system.¹ Each network connects several brain regions. Researchers can use functional MRI to detect the connectivity of those networks. When blood flow increases concurrently across 2 or 3 networks, this indicates those networks are functionally connected.

There was an old “dogma” that brain regions use energy only when activated and being used. Hans Berger, who developed the EEG in 1929, noticed electrical activity at rest and proposed that the brain is constantly busy, but his neurology peers did not take him seriously.² In the 1950s, Louis Sokoloff noticed that brain metabolism was the same whether a person is at rest or doing math. In the 1970s, David Ingvar discovered that the highest blood flow in the frontal lobe occurred when a person was at rest.³ Finally, in 2007, Raichle et al⁴ used positron emission tomography scans to confirm that the frontal lobe is most active when a person is not doing anything. He labeled this phenomenon the DMN, comprising the medial fronto-parietal cortex, the posterior cingulate gyrus, the precuneus, and the angular gyrus. Interestingly, the number of publications about the DMN has skyrocketed since 2007.

The many roles of the DMN

Ongoing research has revealed that the DMN is most active at rest, and its anatomical hubs mediate several key functions⁵:

• Posterior cingulate gyrus (the central core of the DMN): remembering the past and thinking about the future
• Medial prefrontal cortex: autobiographical memories, future goals and events, reflecting on one’s emotional self, and considering decisions about family members
• Dorsal medial subsystem: thinking about others, determining and inferring the purpose of other people’s actions
• Temporo-parietal junction: reflecting on the beliefs and emotions of others (known as “theory of mind”⁶)
• Lateral parietal junction: retrieval of social and conceptual knowledge
• Hippocampus: forming new memories, remembering the past, imagining the future
• Posterior-inferior parietal lobe: junction of auditory, visual, and somatic sensory information and attention
• Precuneus: Visual, sensory-motor, and attention.

Many terms have been used to describe the function of the DMN, including “daydreaming,” “auto-pilot,” “mind-wondering,” “reminiscing,” “contemplating,” “self-reflection,” “the neurological basis of the self,” and “seat of literary creativity.”

Psychiatric consequences of DMN deactivation

When another brain network, the attention network (which is also referred to as the task-positive network), is activated consciously and volitionally to perform a task that demands focus (such as text messaging, playing video games, or continuously interacting with social media sites), DMN activity declines.

Continue to: The DMN does not exist...

The DMN does not exist in infants, but starts to develop in childhood.⁷ It is enhanced by exercise, daydreaming, and sleep, activities that are common in childhood but have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media, which for many youth occupy the bulk of their waking hours. Those tasks, which require continuous attention, deactivate the DMN. In fact, research has shown that addictive behavior decreases the connectivity of the DMN and suppresses its activity.⁸ Most children and adolescents can be regarded as essentially addicted to social media, text messaging, and video games. Unsurprisingly, serious psychiatric consequences follow.⁹

DMN dysfunction has been reported in several psychiatric conditions, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, schizophrenia, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and substance use.^10-12 Impaired social interactions and communications, negative ruminations, suicidal ideas, and impaired encoding of long-term memories are some of the adverse effects of DMN dysfunction. The good news is that the DMN’s connectivity and functioning can be modulated and restored by meditation, mentalizing, exercise, psychotherapy, antidepressants, and psychedelics.^13,14

The lockdown and stress of the COVID-19 pandemic added insult to injury and exacerbated mental illness in children by isolating them from each other and intensifying their technological addiction to fill the void of isolation. This crisis in youth mental health continues unabated, and calls for action to prevent grim outcomes. DMN dysfunction in youth can be reversed with treatment, but access to mental health care has become more challenging due to workforce shortages and insurance restrictions. Psychiatrists and parents must work diligently to treat psychiatrically affected youth, which has become a DaMN serious problem…

The advent of unprecedented technologies drastically altering the behavior of children and adolescents, compounded by prolonged isolation from a once-in-a-century pandemic, may have negatively impacted the normal connectivity of the human brain among youth, leading to the current alarming increase of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among this population.

The human brain is comprised of multiple large-scale networks that are functionally connected and control feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. As clinical neuroscientists, psychiatrists must consider the profound impact of a massive societal shift in human behavior on the functional connectivity of brain networks in health and disease. The advent of smartphones, social media, and video game addiction may have disrupted the developing brain networks in children and adolescents, leading to the current escalating epidemic of mental disorders in youth.

The major networks in the human brain include the default mode network (DMN), the salience network, the limbic system, the dorsal attention network, the central executive network, and the visual system.¹ Each network connects several brain regions. Researchers can use functional MRI to detect the connectivity of those networks. When blood flow increases concurrently across 2 or 3 networks, this indicates those networks are functionally connected.

There was an old “dogma” that brain regions use energy only when activated and being used. Hans Berger, who developed the EEG in 1929, noticed electrical activity at rest and proposed that the brain is constantly busy, but his neurology peers did not take him seriously.² In the 1950s, Louis Sokoloff noticed that brain metabolism was the same whether a person is at rest or doing math. In the 1970s, David Ingvar discovered that the highest blood flow in the frontal lobe occurred when a person was at rest.³ Finally, in 2007, Raichle et al⁴ used positron emission tomography scans to confirm that the frontal lobe is most active when a person is not doing anything. He labeled this phenomenon the DMN, comprising the medial fronto-parietal cortex, the posterior cingulate gyrus, the precuneus, and the angular gyrus. Interestingly, the number of publications about the DMN has skyrocketed since 2007.

The many roles of the DMN

Ongoing research has revealed that the DMN is most active at rest, and its anatomical hubs mediate several key functions⁵:

• Posterior cingulate gyrus (the central core of the DMN): remembering the past and thinking about the future
• Medial prefrontal cortex: autobiographical memories, future goals and events, reflecting on one’s emotional self, and considering decisions about family members
• Dorsal medial subsystem: thinking about others, determining and inferring the purpose of other people’s actions
• Temporo-parietal junction: reflecting on the beliefs and emotions of others (known as “theory of mind”⁶)
• Lateral parietal junction: retrieval of social and conceptual knowledge
• Hippocampus: forming new memories, remembering the past, imagining the future
• Posterior-inferior parietal lobe: junction of auditory, visual, and somatic sensory information and attention
• Precuneus: Visual, sensory-motor, and attention.

Many terms have been used to describe the function of the DMN, including “daydreaming,” “auto-pilot,” “mind-wondering,” “reminiscing,” “contemplating,” “self-reflection,” “the neurological basis of the self,” and “seat of literary creativity.”

Psychiatric consequences of DMN deactivation

When another brain network, the attention network (which is also referred to as the task-positive network), is activated consciously and volitionally to perform a task that demands focus (such as text messaging, playing video games, or continuously interacting with social media sites), DMN activity declines.

Continue to: The DMN does not exist...

The DMN does not exist in infants, but starts to develop in childhood.⁷ It is enhanced by exercise, daydreaming, and sleep, activities that are common in childhood but have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media, which for many youth occupy the bulk of their waking hours. Those tasks, which require continuous attention, deactivate the DMN. In fact, research has shown that addictive behavior decreases the connectivity of the DMN and suppresses its activity.⁸ Most children and adolescents can be regarded as essentially addicted to social media, text messaging, and video games. Unsurprisingly, serious psychiatric consequences follow.⁹

DMN dysfunction has been reported in several psychiatric conditions, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, schizophrenia, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and substance use.^10-12 Impaired social interactions and communications, negative ruminations, suicidal ideas, and impaired encoding of long-term memories are some of the adverse effects of DMN dysfunction. The good news is that the DMN’s connectivity and functioning can be modulated and restored by meditation, mentalizing, exercise, psychotherapy, antidepressants, and psychedelics.^13,14

The lockdown and stress of the COVID-19 pandemic added insult to injury and exacerbated mental illness in children by isolating them from each other and intensifying their technological addiction to fill the void of isolation. This crisis in youth mental health continues unabated, and calls for action to prevent grim outcomes. DMN dysfunction in youth can be reversed with treatment, but access to mental health care has become more challenging due to workforce shortages and insurance restrictions. Psychiatrists and parents must work diligently to treat psychiatrically affected youth, which has become a DaMN serious problem…

The advent of unprecedented technologies drastically altering the behavior of children and adolescents, compounded by prolonged isolation from a once-in-a-century pandemic, may have negatively impacted the normal connectivity of the human brain among youth, leading to the current alarming increase of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among this population.

The human brain is comprised of multiple large-scale networks that are functionally connected and control feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. As clinical neuroscientists, psychiatrists must consider the profound impact of a massive societal shift in human behavior on the functional connectivity of brain networks in health and disease. The advent of smartphones, social media, and video game addiction may have disrupted the developing brain networks in children and adolescents, leading to the current escalating epidemic of mental disorders in youth.

The major networks in the human brain include the default mode network (DMN), the salience network, the limbic system, the dorsal attention network, the central executive network, and the visual system.¹ Each network connects several brain regions. Researchers can use functional MRI to detect the connectivity of those networks. When blood flow increases concurrently across 2 or 3 networks, this indicates those networks are functionally connected.

There was an old “dogma” that brain regions use energy only when activated and being used. Hans Berger, who developed the EEG in 1929, noticed electrical activity at rest and proposed that the brain is constantly busy, but his neurology peers did not take him seriously.² In the 1950s, Louis Sokoloff noticed that brain metabolism was the same whether a person is at rest or doing math. In the 1970s, David Ingvar discovered that the highest blood flow in the frontal lobe occurred when a person was at rest.³ Finally, in 2007, Raichle et al⁴ used positron emission tomography scans to confirm that the frontal lobe is most active when a person is not doing anything. He labeled this phenomenon the DMN, comprising the medial fronto-parietal cortex, the posterior cingulate gyrus, the precuneus, and the angular gyrus. Interestingly, the number of publications about the DMN has skyrocketed since 2007.

The many roles of the DMN

Ongoing research has revealed that the DMN is most active at rest, and its anatomical hubs mediate several key functions⁵:

• Posterior cingulate gyrus (the central core of the DMN): remembering the past and thinking about the future
• Medial prefrontal cortex: autobiographical memories, future goals and events, reflecting on one’s emotional self, and considering decisions about family members
• Dorsal medial subsystem: thinking about others, determining and inferring the purpose of other people’s actions
• Temporo-parietal junction: reflecting on the beliefs and emotions of others (known as “theory of mind”⁶)
• Lateral parietal junction: retrieval of social and conceptual knowledge
• Hippocampus: forming new memories, remembering the past, imagining the future
• Posterior-inferior parietal lobe: junction of auditory, visual, and somatic sensory information and attention
• Precuneus: Visual, sensory-motor, and attention.

Many terms have been used to describe the function of the DMN, including “daydreaming,” “auto-pilot,” “mind-wondering,” “reminiscing,” “contemplating,” “self-reflection,” “the neurological basis of the self,” and “seat of literary creativity.”

Psychiatric consequences of DMN deactivation

When another brain network, the attention network (which is also referred to as the task-positive network), is activated consciously and volitionally to perform a task that demands focus (such as text messaging, playing video games, or continuously interacting with social media sites), DMN activity declines.

Continue to: The DMN does not exist...

The DMN does not exist in infants, but starts to develop in childhood.⁷ It is enhanced by exercise, daydreaming, and sleep, activities that are common in childhood but have declined drastically with the widespread use of smartphones, video games, and social media, which for many youth occupy the bulk of their waking hours. Those tasks, which require continuous attention, deactivate the DMN. In fact, research has shown that addictive behavior decreases the connectivity of the DMN and suppresses its activity.⁸ Most children and adolescents can be regarded as essentially addicted to social media, text messaging, and video games. Unsurprisingly, serious psychiatric consequences follow.⁹

DMN dysfunction has been reported in several psychiatric conditions, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, schizophrenia, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and substance use.^10-12 Impaired social interactions and communications, negative ruminations, suicidal ideas, and impaired encoding of long-term memories are some of the adverse effects of DMN dysfunction. The good news is that the DMN’s connectivity and functioning can be modulated and restored by meditation, mentalizing, exercise, psychotherapy, antidepressants, and psychedelics.^13,14

The lockdown and stress of the COVID-19 pandemic added insult to injury and exacerbated mental illness in children by isolating them from each other and intensifying their technological addiction to fill the void of isolation. This crisis in youth mental health continues unabated, and calls for action to prevent grim outcomes. DMN dysfunction in youth can be reversed with treatment, but access to mental health care has become more challenging due to workforce shortages and insurance restrictions. Psychiatrists and parents must work diligently to treat psychiatrically affected youth, which has become a DaMN serious problem…

obgm03505004_editorial_570x300.jpg

For many decades, the limit of newborn viability was at approximately 24 weeks’ gestation. Recent advances in pregnancy and neonatal care suggest that the new limit of viability is 22 (22 weeks and 0 days to 22 weeks and 6 days) or 23 (23 weeks and 0 days to 23 weeks and 6 days) weeks of gestation. In addition, data from observational cohort studies indicate that for infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, survival is dependent on a course of antenatal steroids administered prior to birth plus intensive respiratory and cardiovascular support at delivery and in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Antenatal steroids: Critical for survival at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation

Most studies of birth outcomes at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation rely on observational cohorts where unmeasured differences among the maternal-fetal dyads that received or did not receive a specific treatment confounds the interpretation of the data. However, data from multiple large observational cohorts suggest that between 22 and 24 weeks of gestation, completion of a course of antenatal steroids will optimize infant outcomes. Particularly noteworthy was the observation that the incremental survival benefit of antenatal steroids was greatest at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation (TABLE 1).¹ Similar results have been reported by Rossi and colleagues (TABLE 2).²

obgm03505004_editorial_table1.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table2.jpg

The importance of a completed course of antenatal steroids before birth was confirmed in another cohort study of 431 infants born in 2016 to 2019 at 22 weeks and 0 days’ to 23 weeks and 6 days’ gestation.³ Survival to discharge occurred in 53.9% of infants who received a full course of antenatal steroids before birth and 35.5% among those who did not receive antenatal steroids.^.3 Survival to discharge without major neonatal morbidities was 26.9% in those who received a full course of antenatal steroids and 10% among those who did not. In this cohort, major neonatal morbidities included severe intracranial hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis, or severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against antenatal steroids prior to 22 weeks and 0 days gestation.⁴ However, some neonatologists might recommend that antenatal steroids be given starting at 21 weeks and 5 days of gestation if birth is anticipated in the 22nd week of gestation and the patient prefers aggressive treatment of the newborn.

Active respiratory and cardiovascular support improves newborn outcomes

To maximize survival, infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation always require intensive active treatment at birth and in the following days in the NICU. Active treatment may include respiratory support, surfactant treatment, pressors, closure of a patent ductus arteriosus, transfusion of red blood cells, and parenteral nutrition. In one observational cohort study, active treatment at birth was not routinely provided at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation but was routinely provided at later gestational ages (TABLE 3A).⁵ Not surprisingly, active treatment, especially at early gestational ages, is associated with improved survival to discharge. For example, at 22 weeks’ gestation, survival to discharge in infants who received or did not receive intensive active treatment was 28% and 0%, respectively.⁵ However, specific clinical characteristics of the pregnant patient and newborn may have influenced which infants were actively treated, confounding interpretation of the observation. In this cohort of extremely premature newborns, survival to hospital discharge increased substantially between 22 weeks and 26 weeks of gestational age (TABLE 3B).⁵

obgm03505004_editorial_table3a.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table3b.jpg

Many of the surviving infants needed chronic support treatment. Among surviving infants born at 22 weeks and 26 weeks, chronic support treatments were being used by 22.6% and 10.6% of infants, respectively, 2 years after birth.⁵ For surviving infants born at 22 weeks, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrostomy or feeding tube (19.4%), oxygen (9.7%), pulse oximeter (9.7%), and/or tracheostomy (3.2%). For surviving infants born at 26 weeks’ gestation, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrotomy or feeding tube (8.5%), pulse oximeter (4.4%), oxygen (3.2%), tracheostomy (2.3%), an apnea monitor (1.5%), and/or ventilator or continuous positive airway pressure (1.1%).⁵

Continue to: Evolving improvement in infant outcomes...

In 1963, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy went into preterm labor at 34 weeks of gestation and delivered her son Patrick at a community facility. Due to severe respiratory distress syndrome, Patrick was transferred to the Boston Children’s Hospital, and he died shortly thereafter.⁶ Sixty years later, due to advances in obstetric and neonatal care, death from respiratory distress syndrome at 34 weeks of gestation is uncommon in the United States.

Infant outcomes following birth at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation continue to improve. An observational cohort study from Sweden reported that at 22 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 10% and 30%, respectively.⁷ Similarly, at 23 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 52% and 61%, respectively.⁷ However, most of the surviving infants in this cohort had one or more major neonatal morbidities, including intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4; periventricular leukomalacia; necrotizing enterocolitis; retinopathy of prematurity grade 3, 4, or 5; or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia.⁷

In a cohort of infants born in Japan at 22 to 24 weeks of gestation, there was a notable decrease in major neurodisability at 3 years of age for births occurring in 2 epochs, 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012.⁸ When comparing outcomes in 2003 to 2007 versus 2008 to 2012, the change in rate of various major complications included the following: cerebral palsy (15.9% vs 9.5%), visual impairment (13.6% vs 4.4%), blindness (4.8% vs 1.3%), and hearing impairment (2.6% vs 1.0%). In contrast, the rate of cognitive impairment, defined as less than 70% of standard test performance for chronological age, was similar in the 2 time periods (36.5% and 37.9%, respectively).⁸ Based on data reported between 2000 and 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Backes and colleagues concluded that there has been substantial improvement in the survival of infants born at 22 weeks of gestation.⁹

The small baby unit

A feature of modern medicine is the relentless evolution of new clinical subspecialties and sub-subspecialties. NICUs evolved from newborn nurseries to serve the needs of the most severely ill newborns, with care provided by a cadre of highly trained subspecialized neonatologists and neonatal nurses. A new era is dawning, with some NICUs developing a sub-subspecialized small baby unit to care for infants born between 22 and 26 weeks of gestation. These units often are staffed by clinicians with a specific interest in optimizing the care of extremely preterm infants, providing continuity of care over a long hospitalization.¹⁰ The benefits of a small baby unit may include:

• relentless standardization and adherence to the best intensive care practices
• daily use of checklists
• strict adherence to central line care
• timely extubation and transition to continuous positive airway pressure
• adherence to breastfeeding guidelines
• limiting the number of clinicians responsible for the patient
• promotion of kangaroo care
• avoidance of noxious stimuli.^10,11

Continue to: Ethical and clinical issues...

Providing clinical care to infants born at the edge of viability is challenging and raises many ethical and clinical concerns.^12,13 For an infant born at the edge of viability, clinicians and parents do not want to initiate a care process that improves survival but results in an extremely poor quality of life. At the same time, clinicians and parents do not want to withhold care that could help an extremely premature newborn survive and thrive. Consequently, the counseling process is complex and requires coordination between the obstetrical and neonatology disciplines, involving physicians and nurses from both. A primary consideration in deciding to institute active treatment at birth is the preference of the pregnant patient and the patient’s trusted family members. A thorough discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this editorial. ACOG provides detailed advice about the approach to counseling patients who face the possibility of a periviable birth.¹⁴

To help standardize the counseling process, institutions may find it helpful to recommend that clinicians consistently use a calculator to provide newborn outcome data to patients. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Extremely Preterm Birth Outcomes calculator uses the following inputs:

• gestational age
• estimated birth weight
• sex
• singleton/multiple gestation
• antenatal steroid treatment.

It also provides the following outputs as percentages:

• survival with active treatment at birth
• survival without active treatment at birth
• profound neurodevelopmental impairment
• moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment
• blindness
• deafness
• moderate to severe cerebral palsy
• cognitive developmental delay.¹⁵

A full assessment of all known clinical factors should influence the interpretation of the output from the clinical calculator. An alternativeis to use data from the Vermont Oxford Network. NICUs with sufficient clinical volume may prefer to use their own outcome data in the counseling process.

Institutions and clinical teams may improve the consistency of the counseling process by identifying criteria for 3 main treatment options:

• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is not generally offered (eg, <22 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is almost always routinely provided (eg, >25 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where patient preferences are especially important in guiding the use of active treatment.

Most institutions do not routinely offer active treatment of the newborn at a gestational age of less than 22 weeks and 0 days. Instead, comfort care often is provided for these newborns. Most institutions routinely provide active treatment at birth beginning at 24 or 25 weeks’ gestation unless unique risk factors or comorbidities warrant not providing active treatment (TABLE 3A). Some professional societies recommend setting a threshold for recommending active treatment at birth. For example, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine recommends that if there is 50% or higher probability of survival without severe disability, active treatment at birth should be considered because it is in the best interest of the newborn.¹⁶ In the hours and days following birth, the clinical course of the newborn greatly influences the treatment plan and care goals. After the initial resuscitation, if the clinical condition of an extremely preterm infant worsens and the prognosis is grim, a pivot to palliative care may be considered.

Final thoughts

Periviability is the earliest stage of fetal development where there is a reasonable chance, but not a high likelihood, of survival outside the womb. For decades, the threshold for periviability was approximately 24 weeks of gestation. With current obstetrical and neonatal practice, the new threshold for periviability is 22 to 23 weeks of gestation, but death prior to hospital discharge occurs in approximately half of these newborns. For the survivors, lifelong neurodevelopmental complications and pulmonary disease are common. Obstetricians play a key role in counseling patients who are at risk of giving birth before 24 weeks of gestation. Given the challenges faced by an infant born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, pregnant patients and trusted family members should approach the decision to actively resuscitate the newborn with caution. However, if the clinical team, patient, and trusted family members agree to pursue active treatment, completion of a course of antenatal steroids and appropriate respiratory and cardiovascular support at birth are key to improving long-term outcomes. ●
 

obgm03505004_editorial_570x300.jpg

For many decades, the limit of newborn viability was at approximately 24 weeks’ gestation. Recent advances in pregnancy and neonatal care suggest that the new limit of viability is 22 (22 weeks and 0 days to 22 weeks and 6 days) or 23 (23 weeks and 0 days to 23 weeks and 6 days) weeks of gestation. In addition, data from observational cohort studies indicate that for infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, survival is dependent on a course of antenatal steroids administered prior to birth plus intensive respiratory and cardiovascular support at delivery and in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Antenatal steroids: Critical for survival at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation

Most studies of birth outcomes at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation rely on observational cohorts where unmeasured differences among the maternal-fetal dyads that received or did not receive a specific treatment confounds the interpretation of the data. However, data from multiple large observational cohorts suggest that between 22 and 24 weeks of gestation, completion of a course of antenatal steroids will optimize infant outcomes. Particularly noteworthy was the observation that the incremental survival benefit of antenatal steroids was greatest at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation (TABLE 1).¹ Similar results have been reported by Rossi and colleagues (TABLE 2).²

obgm03505004_editorial_table1.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table2.jpg

The importance of a completed course of antenatal steroids before birth was confirmed in another cohort study of 431 infants born in 2016 to 2019 at 22 weeks and 0 days’ to 23 weeks and 6 days’ gestation.³ Survival to discharge occurred in 53.9% of infants who received a full course of antenatal steroids before birth and 35.5% among those who did not receive antenatal steroids.^.3 Survival to discharge without major neonatal morbidities was 26.9% in those who received a full course of antenatal steroids and 10% among those who did not. In this cohort, major neonatal morbidities included severe intracranial hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis, or severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against antenatal steroids prior to 22 weeks and 0 days gestation.⁴ However, some neonatologists might recommend that antenatal steroids be given starting at 21 weeks and 5 days of gestation if birth is anticipated in the 22nd week of gestation and the patient prefers aggressive treatment of the newborn.

Active respiratory and cardiovascular support improves newborn outcomes

To maximize survival, infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation always require intensive active treatment at birth and in the following days in the NICU. Active treatment may include respiratory support, surfactant treatment, pressors, closure of a patent ductus arteriosus, transfusion of red blood cells, and parenteral nutrition. In one observational cohort study, active treatment at birth was not routinely provided at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation but was routinely provided at later gestational ages (TABLE 3A).⁵ Not surprisingly, active treatment, especially at early gestational ages, is associated with improved survival to discharge. For example, at 22 weeks’ gestation, survival to discharge in infants who received or did not receive intensive active treatment was 28% and 0%, respectively.⁵ However, specific clinical characteristics of the pregnant patient and newborn may have influenced which infants were actively treated, confounding interpretation of the observation. In this cohort of extremely premature newborns, survival to hospital discharge increased substantially between 22 weeks and 26 weeks of gestational age (TABLE 3B).⁵

obgm03505004_editorial_table3a.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table3b.jpg

Many of the surviving infants needed chronic support treatment. Among surviving infants born at 22 weeks and 26 weeks, chronic support treatments were being used by 22.6% and 10.6% of infants, respectively, 2 years after birth.⁵ For surviving infants born at 22 weeks, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrostomy or feeding tube (19.4%), oxygen (9.7%), pulse oximeter (9.7%), and/or tracheostomy (3.2%). For surviving infants born at 26 weeks’ gestation, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrotomy or feeding tube (8.5%), pulse oximeter (4.4%), oxygen (3.2%), tracheostomy (2.3%), an apnea monitor (1.5%), and/or ventilator or continuous positive airway pressure (1.1%).⁵

Continue to: Evolving improvement in infant outcomes...

In 1963, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy went into preterm labor at 34 weeks of gestation and delivered her son Patrick at a community facility. Due to severe respiratory distress syndrome, Patrick was transferred to the Boston Children’s Hospital, and he died shortly thereafter.⁶ Sixty years later, due to advances in obstetric and neonatal care, death from respiratory distress syndrome at 34 weeks of gestation is uncommon in the United States.

Infant outcomes following birth at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation continue to improve. An observational cohort study from Sweden reported that at 22 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 10% and 30%, respectively.⁷ Similarly, at 23 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 52% and 61%, respectively.⁷ However, most of the surviving infants in this cohort had one or more major neonatal morbidities, including intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4; periventricular leukomalacia; necrotizing enterocolitis; retinopathy of prematurity grade 3, 4, or 5; or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia.⁷

In a cohort of infants born in Japan at 22 to 24 weeks of gestation, there was a notable decrease in major neurodisability at 3 years of age for births occurring in 2 epochs, 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012.⁸ When comparing outcomes in 2003 to 2007 versus 2008 to 2012, the change in rate of various major complications included the following: cerebral palsy (15.9% vs 9.5%), visual impairment (13.6% vs 4.4%), blindness (4.8% vs 1.3%), and hearing impairment (2.6% vs 1.0%). In contrast, the rate of cognitive impairment, defined as less than 70% of standard test performance for chronological age, was similar in the 2 time periods (36.5% and 37.9%, respectively).⁸ Based on data reported between 2000 and 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Backes and colleagues concluded that there has been substantial improvement in the survival of infants born at 22 weeks of gestation.⁹

The small baby unit

A feature of modern medicine is the relentless evolution of new clinical subspecialties and sub-subspecialties. NICUs evolved from newborn nurseries to serve the needs of the most severely ill newborns, with care provided by a cadre of highly trained subspecialized neonatologists and neonatal nurses. A new era is dawning, with some NICUs developing a sub-subspecialized small baby unit to care for infants born between 22 and 26 weeks of gestation. These units often are staffed by clinicians with a specific interest in optimizing the care of extremely preterm infants, providing continuity of care over a long hospitalization.¹⁰ The benefits of a small baby unit may include:

• relentless standardization and adherence to the best intensive care practices
• daily use of checklists
• strict adherence to central line care
• timely extubation and transition to continuous positive airway pressure
• adherence to breastfeeding guidelines
• limiting the number of clinicians responsible for the patient
• promotion of kangaroo care
• avoidance of noxious stimuli.^10,11

Continue to: Ethical and clinical issues...

Providing clinical care to infants born at the edge of viability is challenging and raises many ethical and clinical concerns.^12,13 For an infant born at the edge of viability, clinicians and parents do not want to initiate a care process that improves survival but results in an extremely poor quality of life. At the same time, clinicians and parents do not want to withhold care that could help an extremely premature newborn survive and thrive. Consequently, the counseling process is complex and requires coordination between the obstetrical and neonatology disciplines, involving physicians and nurses from both. A primary consideration in deciding to institute active treatment at birth is the preference of the pregnant patient and the patient’s trusted family members. A thorough discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this editorial. ACOG provides detailed advice about the approach to counseling patients who face the possibility of a periviable birth.¹⁴

To help standardize the counseling process, institutions may find it helpful to recommend that clinicians consistently use a calculator to provide newborn outcome data to patients. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Extremely Preterm Birth Outcomes calculator uses the following inputs:

• gestational age
• estimated birth weight
• sex
• singleton/multiple gestation
• antenatal steroid treatment.

It also provides the following outputs as percentages:

• survival with active treatment at birth
• survival without active treatment at birth
• profound neurodevelopmental impairment
• moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment
• blindness
• deafness
• moderate to severe cerebral palsy
• cognitive developmental delay.¹⁵

A full assessment of all known clinical factors should influence the interpretation of the output from the clinical calculator. An alternativeis to use data from the Vermont Oxford Network. NICUs with sufficient clinical volume may prefer to use their own outcome data in the counseling process.

Institutions and clinical teams may improve the consistency of the counseling process by identifying criteria for 3 main treatment options:

• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is not generally offered (eg, <22 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is almost always routinely provided (eg, >25 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where patient preferences are especially important in guiding the use of active treatment.

Most institutions do not routinely offer active treatment of the newborn at a gestational age of less than 22 weeks and 0 days. Instead, comfort care often is provided for these newborns. Most institutions routinely provide active treatment at birth beginning at 24 or 25 weeks’ gestation unless unique risk factors or comorbidities warrant not providing active treatment (TABLE 3A). Some professional societies recommend setting a threshold for recommending active treatment at birth. For example, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine recommends that if there is 50% or higher probability of survival without severe disability, active treatment at birth should be considered because it is in the best interest of the newborn.¹⁶ In the hours and days following birth, the clinical course of the newborn greatly influences the treatment plan and care goals. After the initial resuscitation, if the clinical condition of an extremely preterm infant worsens and the prognosis is grim, a pivot to palliative care may be considered.

Final thoughts

Periviability is the earliest stage of fetal development where there is a reasonable chance, but not a high likelihood, of survival outside the womb. For decades, the threshold for periviability was approximately 24 weeks of gestation. With current obstetrical and neonatal practice, the new threshold for periviability is 22 to 23 weeks of gestation, but death prior to hospital discharge occurs in approximately half of these newborns. For the survivors, lifelong neurodevelopmental complications and pulmonary disease are common. Obstetricians play a key role in counseling patients who are at risk of giving birth before 24 weeks of gestation. Given the challenges faced by an infant born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, pregnant patients and trusted family members should approach the decision to actively resuscitate the newborn with caution. However, if the clinical team, patient, and trusted family members agree to pursue active treatment, completion of a course of antenatal steroids and appropriate respiratory and cardiovascular support at birth are key to improving long-term outcomes. ●
 

obgm03505004_editorial_570x300.jpg

For many decades, the limit of newborn viability was at approximately 24 weeks’ gestation. Recent advances in pregnancy and neonatal care suggest that the new limit of viability is 22 (22 weeks and 0 days to 22 weeks and 6 days) or 23 (23 weeks and 0 days to 23 weeks and 6 days) weeks of gestation. In addition, data from observational cohort studies indicate that for infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, survival is dependent on a course of antenatal steroids administered prior to birth plus intensive respiratory and cardiovascular support at delivery and in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Antenatal steroids: Critical for survival at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation

Most studies of birth outcomes at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation rely on observational cohorts where unmeasured differences among the maternal-fetal dyads that received or did not receive a specific treatment confounds the interpretation of the data. However, data from multiple large observational cohorts suggest that between 22 and 24 weeks of gestation, completion of a course of antenatal steroids will optimize infant outcomes. Particularly noteworthy was the observation that the incremental survival benefit of antenatal steroids was greatest at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation (TABLE 1).¹ Similar results have been reported by Rossi and colleagues (TABLE 2).²

obgm03505004_editorial_table1.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table2.jpg

The importance of a completed course of antenatal steroids before birth was confirmed in another cohort study of 431 infants born in 2016 to 2019 at 22 weeks and 0 days’ to 23 weeks and 6 days’ gestation.³ Survival to discharge occurred in 53.9% of infants who received a full course of antenatal steroids before birth and 35.5% among those who did not receive antenatal steroids.^.3 Survival to discharge without major neonatal morbidities was 26.9% in those who received a full course of antenatal steroids and 10% among those who did not. In this cohort, major neonatal morbidities included severe intracranial hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis, or severe retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends against antenatal steroids prior to 22 weeks and 0 days gestation.⁴ However, some neonatologists might recommend that antenatal steroids be given starting at 21 weeks and 5 days of gestation if birth is anticipated in the 22nd week of gestation and the patient prefers aggressive treatment of the newborn.

Active respiratory and cardiovascular support improves newborn outcomes

To maximize survival, infants born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation always require intensive active treatment at birth and in the following days in the NICU. Active treatment may include respiratory support, surfactant treatment, pressors, closure of a patent ductus arteriosus, transfusion of red blood cells, and parenteral nutrition. In one observational cohort study, active treatment at birth was not routinely provided at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation but was routinely provided at later gestational ages (TABLE 3A).⁵ Not surprisingly, active treatment, especially at early gestational ages, is associated with improved survival to discharge. For example, at 22 weeks’ gestation, survival to discharge in infants who received or did not receive intensive active treatment was 28% and 0%, respectively.⁵ However, specific clinical characteristics of the pregnant patient and newborn may have influenced which infants were actively treated, confounding interpretation of the observation. In this cohort of extremely premature newborns, survival to hospital discharge increased substantially between 22 weeks and 26 weeks of gestational age (TABLE 3B).⁵

obgm03505004_editorial_table3a.jpg

obgm03505004_editorial_table3b.jpg

Many of the surviving infants needed chronic support treatment. Among surviving infants born at 22 weeks and 26 weeks, chronic support treatments were being used by 22.6% and 10.6% of infants, respectively, 2 years after birth.⁵ For surviving infants born at 22 weeks, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrostomy or feeding tube (19.4%), oxygen (9.7%), pulse oximeter (9.7%), and/or tracheostomy (3.2%). For surviving infants born at 26 weeks’ gestation, the specific chronic support treatments included gastrotomy or feeding tube (8.5%), pulse oximeter (4.4%), oxygen (3.2%), tracheostomy (2.3%), an apnea monitor (1.5%), and/or ventilator or continuous positive airway pressure (1.1%).⁵

Continue to: Evolving improvement in infant outcomes...

In 1963, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy went into preterm labor at 34 weeks of gestation and delivered her son Patrick at a community facility. Due to severe respiratory distress syndrome, Patrick was transferred to the Boston Children’s Hospital, and he died shortly thereafter.⁶ Sixty years later, due to advances in obstetric and neonatal care, death from respiratory distress syndrome at 34 weeks of gestation is uncommon in the United States.

Infant outcomes following birth at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation continue to improve. An observational cohort study from Sweden reported that at 22 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 10% and 30%, respectively.⁷ Similarly, at 23 weeks’ gestation, the percentage of live-born infants who survived to 1-year post birth in 2004 to 2007 and 2014 to 2016 was 52% and 61%, respectively.⁷ However, most of the surviving infants in this cohort had one or more major neonatal morbidities, including intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4; periventricular leukomalacia; necrotizing enterocolitis; retinopathy of prematurity grade 3, 4, or 5; or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia.⁷

In a cohort of infants born in Japan at 22 to 24 weeks of gestation, there was a notable decrease in major neurodisability at 3 years of age for births occurring in 2 epochs, 2003 to 2007 and 2008 to 2012.⁸ When comparing outcomes in 2003 to 2007 versus 2008 to 2012, the change in rate of various major complications included the following: cerebral palsy (15.9% vs 9.5%), visual impairment (13.6% vs 4.4%), blindness (4.8% vs 1.3%), and hearing impairment (2.6% vs 1.0%). In contrast, the rate of cognitive impairment, defined as less than 70% of standard test performance for chronological age, was similar in the 2 time periods (36.5% and 37.9%, respectively).⁸ Based on data reported between 2000 and 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Backes and colleagues concluded that there has been substantial improvement in the survival of infants born at 22 weeks of gestation.⁹

The small baby unit

A feature of modern medicine is the relentless evolution of new clinical subspecialties and sub-subspecialties. NICUs evolved from newborn nurseries to serve the needs of the most severely ill newborns, with care provided by a cadre of highly trained subspecialized neonatologists and neonatal nurses. A new era is dawning, with some NICUs developing a sub-subspecialized small baby unit to care for infants born between 22 and 26 weeks of gestation. These units often are staffed by clinicians with a specific interest in optimizing the care of extremely preterm infants, providing continuity of care over a long hospitalization.¹⁰ The benefits of a small baby unit may include:

• relentless standardization and adherence to the best intensive care practices
• daily use of checklists
• strict adherence to central line care
• timely extubation and transition to continuous positive airway pressure
• adherence to breastfeeding guidelines
• limiting the number of clinicians responsible for the patient
• promotion of kangaroo care
• avoidance of noxious stimuli.^10,11

Continue to: Ethical and clinical issues...

Providing clinical care to infants born at the edge of viability is challenging and raises many ethical and clinical concerns.^12,13 For an infant born at the edge of viability, clinicians and parents do not want to initiate a care process that improves survival but results in an extremely poor quality of life. At the same time, clinicians and parents do not want to withhold care that could help an extremely premature newborn survive and thrive. Consequently, the counseling process is complex and requires coordination between the obstetrical and neonatology disciplines, involving physicians and nurses from both. A primary consideration in deciding to institute active treatment at birth is the preference of the pregnant patient and the patient’s trusted family members. A thorough discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this editorial. ACOG provides detailed advice about the approach to counseling patients who face the possibility of a periviable birth.¹⁴

To help standardize the counseling process, institutions may find it helpful to recommend that clinicians consistently use a calculator to provide newborn outcome data to patients. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Extremely Preterm Birth Outcomes calculator uses the following inputs:

• gestational age
• estimated birth weight
• sex
• singleton/multiple gestation
• antenatal steroid treatment.

It also provides the following outputs as percentages:

• survival with active treatment at birth
• survival without active treatment at birth
• profound neurodevelopmental impairment
• moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment
• blindness
• deafness
• moderate to severe cerebral palsy
• cognitive developmental delay.¹⁵

A full assessment of all known clinical factors should influence the interpretation of the output from the clinical calculator. An alternativeis to use data from the Vermont Oxford Network. NICUs with sufficient clinical volume may prefer to use their own outcome data in the counseling process.

Institutions and clinical teams may improve the consistency of the counseling process by identifying criteria for 3 main treatment options:

• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is not generally offered (eg, <22 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where active treatment at birth is almost always routinely provided (eg, >25 weeks’ gestation)
• clinical situations where patient preferences are especially important in guiding the use of active treatment.

Most institutions do not routinely offer active treatment of the newborn at a gestational age of less than 22 weeks and 0 days. Instead, comfort care often is provided for these newborns. Most institutions routinely provide active treatment at birth beginning at 24 or 25 weeks’ gestation unless unique risk factors or comorbidities warrant not providing active treatment (TABLE 3A). Some professional societies recommend setting a threshold for recommending active treatment at birth. For example, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine recommends that if there is 50% or higher probability of survival without severe disability, active treatment at birth should be considered because it is in the best interest of the newborn.¹⁶ In the hours and days following birth, the clinical course of the newborn greatly influences the treatment plan and care goals. After the initial resuscitation, if the clinical condition of an extremely preterm infant worsens and the prognosis is grim, a pivot to palliative care may be considered.

Final thoughts

Periviability is the earliest stage of fetal development where there is a reasonable chance, but not a high likelihood, of survival outside the womb. For decades, the threshold for periviability was approximately 24 weeks of gestation. With current obstetrical and neonatal practice, the new threshold for periviability is 22 to 23 weeks of gestation, but death prior to hospital discharge occurs in approximately half of these newborns. For the survivors, lifelong neurodevelopmental complications and pulmonary disease are common. Obstetricians play a key role in counseling patients who are at risk of giving birth before 24 weeks of gestation. Given the challenges faced by an infant born at 22 and 23 weeks’ gestation, pregnant patients and trusted family members should approach the decision to actively resuscitate the newborn with caution. However, if the clinical team, patient, and trusted family members agree to pursue active treatment, completion of a course of antenatal steroids and appropriate respiratory and cardiovascular support at birth are key to improving long-term outcomes. ●