Ob.Gyn. News

Amid the rising spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the virus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).

WHO.int

The declaration was made during a press briefing on Jan. 30 after a week of growing concern and pressure on WHO to designate the virus at a higher emergency level. WHO’s Emergency Committee made the nearly unanimous decision after considering the increasing number of coronavirus cases in China, the rising infections outside of China, and the questionable measures some countries are taking regarding travel, said committee chair Didier Houssin, MD, said during the press conference.

As of Jan. 30, there were 8,236 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China and 171 deaths, with another 112 cases identified outside of China in 21 other countries.

“Declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is likely to facilitate [WHO’s] leadership role for public health measures, holding countries to account concerning additional measures they may take regarding travel, trade, quarantine or screening, research efforts, global coordination and anticipation of economic impact [and] support to vulnerable states,” Dr. Houssin said during the press conference. “Declaring a PHEIC should certainly not be seen as manifestation of distrust in the Chinese authorities and people which are doing tremendous efforts on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and let us hope, with success.”
 

What happens next?

Once a PHEIC is declared, WHO launches a series of steps, including the release of temporary recommendations for the affected country on health measures to implement and guidance for other countries on preventing and reducing the international spread of the disease, WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an interview.

“The purpose of declaring a PHEIC is to advise the world on what measures need to be taken to enhance global health security by preventing international transmission of an infectious hazard,” he said.

Following the Jan. 30 press conference, WHO released temporary guidance for China and for other countries regarding identifying, managing, containing, and preventing the virus. China is advised to continue updating the population about the outbreak, continue enhancing its public health measures for containment and surveillance of cases, and to continue collaboration with WHO and other partners to investigate the epidemiology and evolution of the outbreak and share data on all human cases.

Other countries should be prepared for containment, including the active surveillance, early detection, isolation, case management, and prevention of virus transmission and to share full data with WHO, according to the recommendations.

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), countries are required to share information and data with WHO. Additionally, WHO leaders advised the global community to support low- and middle-income countries with their response to the coronavirus and to facilitate diagnostics, potential vaccines, and therapeutics in these areas.

The IHR requires that countries implementing health measures that go beyond what WHO recommends must send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation for WHO review, Mr. Jasarevic noted.

“WHO is obliged to share the information about measures and the justification received with other countries involved,” he said.
 

PHEIC travel and resource impact

Declaration of a PHEIC means WHO will now oversee any travel restrictions made by other countries in response to 2019-nCoV. The agency recommends that countries conduct a risk and cost-benefit analysis before enacting travel restrictions and other countries are required to inform WHO about any travel measures taken.

“Countries will be asked to provide public health justification for any travel or trade measures that are not scientifically based, such as refusal of entry of suspect cases or unaffected persons to affected areas,” Mr. Jasarevic said in an interview.

As far as resources, the PHEIC mechanism is not a fundraising mechanism, but some donors might consider a PHEIC declaration as a trigger for releasing additional funding to respond to the health threat, he said.

Allison T. Chamberlain, PhD, acting director for the Emory Center for Public Health Preparedness and Research at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, said national governments and nongovernmental aid organizations are among the most affected by a PHEIC because they are looked at to provide assistance to the most heavily affected areas and to bolster public health preparedness within their own borders.

“In terms of resources that are deployed, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern raises levels of international support and commitment to stopping the emergency,” Dr. Chamberlain said in an interview. “By doing so, it gives countries the needed flexibility to release financial resources of their own accord to support things like response teams that might go into heavily affected areas to assist, for instance.”

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed that cooperation among countries is key during the PHEIC.

“We can only stop it together,” he said during the press conference. “This is the time for facts, not fear. This is the time for science, not rumors. This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”

This is the sixth PHEIC declared by WHO in the last 10 years. Such declarations were made for the 2009 H1NI influenza pandemic, the 2014 polio resurgence, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the 2016 Zika virus, and the 2019 Kivu Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Amid the rising spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the virus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).

WHO.int

The declaration was made during a press briefing on Jan. 30 after a week of growing concern and pressure on WHO to designate the virus at a higher emergency level. WHO’s Emergency Committee made the nearly unanimous decision after considering the increasing number of coronavirus cases in China, the rising infections outside of China, and the questionable measures some countries are taking regarding travel, said committee chair Didier Houssin, MD, said during the press conference.

As of Jan. 30, there were 8,236 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China and 171 deaths, with another 112 cases identified outside of China in 21 other countries.

“Declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is likely to facilitate [WHO’s] leadership role for public health measures, holding countries to account concerning additional measures they may take regarding travel, trade, quarantine or screening, research efforts, global coordination and anticipation of economic impact [and] support to vulnerable states,” Dr. Houssin said during the press conference. “Declaring a PHEIC should certainly not be seen as manifestation of distrust in the Chinese authorities and people which are doing tremendous efforts on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and let us hope, with success.”
 

What happens next?

Once a PHEIC is declared, WHO launches a series of steps, including the release of temporary recommendations for the affected country on health measures to implement and guidance for other countries on preventing and reducing the international spread of the disease, WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an interview.

“The purpose of declaring a PHEIC is to advise the world on what measures need to be taken to enhance global health security by preventing international transmission of an infectious hazard,” he said.

Following the Jan. 30 press conference, WHO released temporary guidance for China and for other countries regarding identifying, managing, containing, and preventing the virus. China is advised to continue updating the population about the outbreak, continue enhancing its public health measures for containment and surveillance of cases, and to continue collaboration with WHO and other partners to investigate the epidemiology and evolution of the outbreak and share data on all human cases.

Other countries should be prepared for containment, including the active surveillance, early detection, isolation, case management, and prevention of virus transmission and to share full data with WHO, according to the recommendations.

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), countries are required to share information and data with WHO. Additionally, WHO leaders advised the global community to support low- and middle-income countries with their response to the coronavirus and to facilitate diagnostics, potential vaccines, and therapeutics in these areas.

The IHR requires that countries implementing health measures that go beyond what WHO recommends must send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation for WHO review, Mr. Jasarevic noted.

“WHO is obliged to share the information about measures and the justification received with other countries involved,” he said.
 

PHEIC travel and resource impact

Declaration of a PHEIC means WHO will now oversee any travel restrictions made by other countries in response to 2019-nCoV. The agency recommends that countries conduct a risk and cost-benefit analysis before enacting travel restrictions and other countries are required to inform WHO about any travel measures taken.

“Countries will be asked to provide public health justification for any travel or trade measures that are not scientifically based, such as refusal of entry of suspect cases or unaffected persons to affected areas,” Mr. Jasarevic said in an interview.

As far as resources, the PHEIC mechanism is not a fundraising mechanism, but some donors might consider a PHEIC declaration as a trigger for releasing additional funding to respond to the health threat, he said.

Allison T. Chamberlain, PhD, acting director for the Emory Center for Public Health Preparedness and Research at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, said national governments and nongovernmental aid organizations are among the most affected by a PHEIC because they are looked at to provide assistance to the most heavily affected areas and to bolster public health preparedness within their own borders.

“In terms of resources that are deployed, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern raises levels of international support and commitment to stopping the emergency,” Dr. Chamberlain said in an interview. “By doing so, it gives countries the needed flexibility to release financial resources of their own accord to support things like response teams that might go into heavily affected areas to assist, for instance.”

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed that cooperation among countries is key during the PHEIC.

“We can only stop it together,” he said during the press conference. “This is the time for facts, not fear. This is the time for science, not rumors. This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”

This is the sixth PHEIC declared by WHO in the last 10 years. Such declarations were made for the 2009 H1NI influenza pandemic, the 2014 polio resurgence, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the 2016 Zika virus, and the 2019 Kivu Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Amid the rising spread of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the virus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).

WHO.int

The declaration was made during a press briefing on Jan. 30 after a week of growing concern and pressure on WHO to designate the virus at a higher emergency level. WHO’s Emergency Committee made the nearly unanimous decision after considering the increasing number of coronavirus cases in China, the rising infections outside of China, and the questionable measures some countries are taking regarding travel, said committee chair Didier Houssin, MD, said during the press conference.

As of Jan. 30, there were 8,236 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China and 171 deaths, with another 112 cases identified outside of China in 21 other countries.

“Declaring a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is likely to facilitate [WHO’s] leadership role for public health measures, holding countries to account concerning additional measures they may take regarding travel, trade, quarantine or screening, research efforts, global coordination and anticipation of economic impact [and] support to vulnerable states,” Dr. Houssin said during the press conference. “Declaring a PHEIC should certainly not be seen as manifestation of distrust in the Chinese authorities and people which are doing tremendous efforts on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and let us hope, with success.”
 

What happens next?

Once a PHEIC is declared, WHO launches a series of steps, including the release of temporary recommendations for the affected country on health measures to implement and guidance for other countries on preventing and reducing the international spread of the disease, WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an interview.

“The purpose of declaring a PHEIC is to advise the world on what measures need to be taken to enhance global health security by preventing international transmission of an infectious hazard,” he said.

Following the Jan. 30 press conference, WHO released temporary guidance for China and for other countries regarding identifying, managing, containing, and preventing the virus. China is advised to continue updating the population about the outbreak, continue enhancing its public health measures for containment and surveillance of cases, and to continue collaboration with WHO and other partners to investigate the epidemiology and evolution of the outbreak and share data on all human cases.

Other countries should be prepared for containment, including the active surveillance, early detection, isolation, case management, and prevention of virus transmission and to share full data with WHO, according to the recommendations.

Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), countries are required to share information and data with WHO. Additionally, WHO leaders advised the global community to support low- and middle-income countries with their response to the coronavirus and to facilitate diagnostics, potential vaccines, and therapeutics in these areas.

The IHR requires that countries implementing health measures that go beyond what WHO recommends must send to WHO the public health rationale and justification within 48 hours of their implementation for WHO review, Mr. Jasarevic noted.

“WHO is obliged to share the information about measures and the justification received with other countries involved,” he said.
 

PHEIC travel and resource impact

Declaration of a PHEIC means WHO will now oversee any travel restrictions made by other countries in response to 2019-nCoV. The agency recommends that countries conduct a risk and cost-benefit analysis before enacting travel restrictions and other countries are required to inform WHO about any travel measures taken.

“Countries will be asked to provide public health justification for any travel or trade measures that are not scientifically based, such as refusal of entry of suspect cases or unaffected persons to affected areas,” Mr. Jasarevic said in an interview.

As far as resources, the PHEIC mechanism is not a fundraising mechanism, but some donors might consider a PHEIC declaration as a trigger for releasing additional funding to respond to the health threat, he said.

Allison T. Chamberlain, PhD, acting director for the Emory Center for Public Health Preparedness and Research at the Emory Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, said national governments and nongovernmental aid organizations are among the most affected by a PHEIC because they are looked at to provide assistance to the most heavily affected areas and to bolster public health preparedness within their own borders.

“In terms of resources that are deployed, a Public Health Emergency of International Concern raises levels of international support and commitment to stopping the emergency,” Dr. Chamberlain said in an interview. “By doing so, it gives countries the needed flexibility to release financial resources of their own accord to support things like response teams that might go into heavily affected areas to assist, for instance.”

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stressed that cooperation among countries is key during the PHEIC.

“We can only stop it together,” he said during the press conference. “This is the time for facts, not fear. This is the time for science, not rumors. This is the time for solidarity, not stigma.”

This is the sixth PHEIC declared by WHO in the last 10 years. Such declarations were made for the 2009 H1NI influenza pandemic, the 2014 polio resurgence, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the 2016 Zika virus, and the 2019 Kivu Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak has unfolded so rapidly that many clinicians are scrambling to stay on top of it. Here are the answers to some frequently asked questions about how to prepare your clinic to respond to this outbreak.

Keep in mind that the outbreak is moving rapidly. Though scientific and epidemiologic knowledge has increased at unprecedented speed, there is much we don’t know, and some of what we think we know will change. Follow the links for the most up-to-date information.

What should our clinic do first?

Plan ahead with the following:

• Develop a plan for office staff to take travel histories from anyone with a respiratory illness and provide training for those who need it. Travel history at present should include asking about travel to China in the past 14 days, specifically Wuhan city or Hubei province.
• Review up-to-date infection control practices with all office staff and provide training for those who need it.
• Take an inventory of supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection, and N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), and order items that are missing or low in stock.
• Fit-test users of N95 masks for maximal effectiveness.
• Plan where a potential patient would be isolated while obtaining expert advice.
• Know whom to contact at the state or local health department if you have a patient with the appropriate travel history.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prepared a toolkit to help frontline health care professionals prepare for this virus. Providers need to stay up to date on the latest recommendations, as the situation is changing rapidly.

When should I suspect 2019-nCoV illness, and what should I do?

Take the following steps to assess the concern and respond:

• If a patient with respiratory illness has traveled to China in the past 14 days, immediately put a mask on the patient and move the individual to a private room. Use a negative-pressure room if available.
• Put on appropriate PPE (including gloves, gown, eye protection, and mask) for contact, droplet, and airborne precautions. CDC recommends an N95 respirator mask if available, although we don’t know yet if there is true airborne spread.
• Obtain an accurate travel history, including dates and cities. (Tip: Get the correct spelling, as the English spelling of cities in China can cause confusion.)
• If the patient meets the current CDC definition of “person under investigation” or PUI, or if you need guidance on how to proceed, notify infection control (if you are in a facility that has it) and call your state or local health department immediately.
• Contact public health authorities who can help decide whether the patient should be admitted to airborne isolation or monitored at home with appropriate precautions.

What is the definition of a PUI?

The current definition of a PUI is a person who has fever and symptoms of a respiratory infection (cough, shortness of breath) AND who has EITHER been in Wuhan city or Hubei province in the past 14 days OR had close contact with a person either under investigation for 2019-nCoV infection or with confirmed infection. The definition of a PUI will change over time, so check this link.

How can I test for 2019-nCoV?

As of Jan. 30, 2020, testing is by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and is available in the United States only through the CDC in Atlanta. Testing should soon be available in state health department laboratories. If public health authorities decide that your patient should be tested, they will instruct you on which samples to obtain.

The full sequence of 2019-nCoV has been shared, so some reference laboratories may develop and validate tests, ideally with assistance from CDC. If testing becomes available, make certain that it is a reputable lab that has carefully validated the test.

Should I test for other viruses?

Because the symptoms of 2019-nCoV infection overlap with those of influenza and other respiratory viruses, PCR testing for other viruses should be considered if it will change management (i.e., change the decision to provide influenza antivirals). Use appropriate PPE while collecting specimens, including eye protection. If 2019-nCoV is a consideration, you may want to send the specimen to a hospital lab for testing, where the sample will be processed under a biosafety hood, rather than doing point-of-care testing in the office.

How dangerous is 2019-nCoV?

The current estimated mortality rate is 2%-3%. That is probably an overestimate, as those with severe disease and those who die are more likely to be tested and reported early in an epidemic.

Our current knowledge is based on preliminary reports from hospitalized patients and will probably change. From the speed of spread and a single family cluster, it seems likely that there are milder cases and perhaps asymptomatic infection.

What else do I need to know about coronaviruses?

Coronaviruses are a large and diverse group of viruses, many of which are animal viruses. Before the discovery of the 2019-nCoV, six coronaviruses were known to infect humans. Four of these (HKU1, NL63, OC43, and 229E) predominantly caused mild to moderate upper respiratory illness, and they are thought to be responsible for 10%-30% of colds. They occasionally cause viral pneumonia and can be detected by some commercial multiplex panels.

Two other coronaviruses have caused outbreaks of severe respiratory illness in people: SARS, which emerged in Southern China in 2002, and MERS in the Middle East, in 2012. Unlike SARS, sporadic cases of MERS continue to occur.

The current outbreak is caused by 2019-nCoV, a previously unknown beta coronavirus. It is most closely related (~96%) to a bat virus and shares about 80% sequence homology with SARS CoV.

Andrew T. Pavia, MD, is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. He is also director of hospital epidemiology and associate director of antimicrobial stewardship at Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City. Dr. Pavia has disclosed that he has served as a consultant for Genentech, Merck, and Seqirus and that he has served as associate editor for The Sanford Guide.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak has unfolded so rapidly that many clinicians are scrambling to stay on top of it. Here are the answers to some frequently asked questions about how to prepare your clinic to respond to this outbreak.

Keep in mind that the outbreak is moving rapidly. Though scientific and epidemiologic knowledge has increased at unprecedented speed, there is much we don’t know, and some of what we think we know will change. Follow the links for the most up-to-date information.

What should our clinic do first?

Plan ahead with the following:

• Develop a plan for office staff to take travel histories from anyone with a respiratory illness and provide training for those who need it. Travel history at present should include asking about travel to China in the past 14 days, specifically Wuhan city or Hubei province.
• Review up-to-date infection control practices with all office staff and provide training for those who need it.
• Take an inventory of supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection, and N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), and order items that are missing or low in stock.
• Fit-test users of N95 masks for maximal effectiveness.
• Plan where a potential patient would be isolated while obtaining expert advice.
• Know whom to contact at the state or local health department if you have a patient with the appropriate travel history.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prepared a toolkit to help frontline health care professionals prepare for this virus. Providers need to stay up to date on the latest recommendations, as the situation is changing rapidly.

When should I suspect 2019-nCoV illness, and what should I do?

Take the following steps to assess the concern and respond:

• If a patient with respiratory illness has traveled to China in the past 14 days, immediately put a mask on the patient and move the individual to a private room. Use a negative-pressure room if available.
• Put on appropriate PPE (including gloves, gown, eye protection, and mask) for contact, droplet, and airborne precautions. CDC recommends an N95 respirator mask if available, although we don’t know yet if there is true airborne spread.
• Obtain an accurate travel history, including dates and cities. (Tip: Get the correct spelling, as the English spelling of cities in China can cause confusion.)
• If the patient meets the current CDC definition of “person under investigation” or PUI, or if you need guidance on how to proceed, notify infection control (if you are in a facility that has it) and call your state or local health department immediately.
• Contact public health authorities who can help decide whether the patient should be admitted to airborne isolation or monitored at home with appropriate precautions.

What is the definition of a PUI?

The current definition of a PUI is a person who has fever and symptoms of a respiratory infection (cough, shortness of breath) AND who has EITHER been in Wuhan city or Hubei province in the past 14 days OR had close contact with a person either under investigation for 2019-nCoV infection or with confirmed infection. The definition of a PUI will change over time, so check this link.

How can I test for 2019-nCoV?

As of Jan. 30, 2020, testing is by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and is available in the United States only through the CDC in Atlanta. Testing should soon be available in state health department laboratories. If public health authorities decide that your patient should be tested, they will instruct you on which samples to obtain.

The full sequence of 2019-nCoV has been shared, so some reference laboratories may develop and validate tests, ideally with assistance from CDC. If testing becomes available, make certain that it is a reputable lab that has carefully validated the test.

Should I test for other viruses?

Because the symptoms of 2019-nCoV infection overlap with those of influenza and other respiratory viruses, PCR testing for other viruses should be considered if it will change management (i.e., change the decision to provide influenza antivirals). Use appropriate PPE while collecting specimens, including eye protection. If 2019-nCoV is a consideration, you may want to send the specimen to a hospital lab for testing, where the sample will be processed under a biosafety hood, rather than doing point-of-care testing in the office.

How dangerous is 2019-nCoV?

The current estimated mortality rate is 2%-3%. That is probably an overestimate, as those with severe disease and those who die are more likely to be tested and reported early in an epidemic.

Our current knowledge is based on preliminary reports from hospitalized patients and will probably change. From the speed of spread and a single family cluster, it seems likely that there are milder cases and perhaps asymptomatic infection.

What else do I need to know about coronaviruses?

Coronaviruses are a large and diverse group of viruses, many of which are animal viruses. Before the discovery of the 2019-nCoV, six coronaviruses were known to infect humans. Four of these (HKU1, NL63, OC43, and 229E) predominantly caused mild to moderate upper respiratory illness, and they are thought to be responsible for 10%-30% of colds. They occasionally cause viral pneumonia and can be detected by some commercial multiplex panels.

Two other coronaviruses have caused outbreaks of severe respiratory illness in people: SARS, which emerged in Southern China in 2002, and MERS in the Middle East, in 2012. Unlike SARS, sporadic cases of MERS continue to occur.

The current outbreak is caused by 2019-nCoV, a previously unknown beta coronavirus. It is most closely related (~96%) to a bat virus and shares about 80% sequence homology with SARS CoV.

Andrew T. Pavia, MD, is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. He is also director of hospital epidemiology and associate director of antimicrobial stewardship at Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City. Dr. Pavia has disclosed that he has served as a consultant for Genentech, Merck, and Seqirus and that he has served as associate editor for The Sanford Guide.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak has unfolded so rapidly that many clinicians are scrambling to stay on top of it. Here are the answers to some frequently asked questions about how to prepare your clinic to respond to this outbreak.

Keep in mind that the outbreak is moving rapidly. Though scientific and epidemiologic knowledge has increased at unprecedented speed, there is much we don’t know, and some of what we think we know will change. Follow the links for the most up-to-date information.

What should our clinic do first?

Plan ahead with the following:

• Develop a plan for office staff to take travel histories from anyone with a respiratory illness and provide training for those who need it. Travel history at present should include asking about travel to China in the past 14 days, specifically Wuhan city or Hubei province.
• Review up-to-date infection control practices with all office staff and provide training for those who need it.
• Take an inventory of supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection, and N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), and order items that are missing or low in stock.
• Fit-test users of N95 masks for maximal effectiveness.
• Plan where a potential patient would be isolated while obtaining expert advice.
• Know whom to contact at the state or local health department if you have a patient with the appropriate travel history.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prepared a toolkit to help frontline health care professionals prepare for this virus. Providers need to stay up to date on the latest recommendations, as the situation is changing rapidly.

When should I suspect 2019-nCoV illness, and what should I do?

Take the following steps to assess the concern and respond:

• If a patient with respiratory illness has traveled to China in the past 14 days, immediately put a mask on the patient and move the individual to a private room. Use a negative-pressure room if available.
• Put on appropriate PPE (including gloves, gown, eye protection, and mask) for contact, droplet, and airborne precautions. CDC recommends an N95 respirator mask if available, although we don’t know yet if there is true airborne spread.
• Obtain an accurate travel history, including dates and cities. (Tip: Get the correct spelling, as the English spelling of cities in China can cause confusion.)
• If the patient meets the current CDC definition of “person under investigation” or PUI, or if you need guidance on how to proceed, notify infection control (if you are in a facility that has it) and call your state or local health department immediately.
• Contact public health authorities who can help decide whether the patient should be admitted to airborne isolation or monitored at home with appropriate precautions.

What is the definition of a PUI?

The current definition of a PUI is a person who has fever and symptoms of a respiratory infection (cough, shortness of breath) AND who has EITHER been in Wuhan city or Hubei province in the past 14 days OR had close contact with a person either under investigation for 2019-nCoV infection or with confirmed infection. The definition of a PUI will change over time, so check this link.

How can I test for 2019-nCoV?

As of Jan. 30, 2020, testing is by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and is available in the United States only through the CDC in Atlanta. Testing should soon be available in state health department laboratories. If public health authorities decide that your patient should be tested, they will instruct you on which samples to obtain.

The full sequence of 2019-nCoV has been shared, so some reference laboratories may develop and validate tests, ideally with assistance from CDC. If testing becomes available, make certain that it is a reputable lab that has carefully validated the test.

Should I test for other viruses?

Because the symptoms of 2019-nCoV infection overlap with those of influenza and other respiratory viruses, PCR testing for other viruses should be considered if it will change management (i.e., change the decision to provide influenza antivirals). Use appropriate PPE while collecting specimens, including eye protection. If 2019-nCoV is a consideration, you may want to send the specimen to a hospital lab for testing, where the sample will be processed under a biosafety hood, rather than doing point-of-care testing in the office.

How dangerous is 2019-nCoV?

The current estimated mortality rate is 2%-3%. That is probably an overestimate, as those with severe disease and those who die are more likely to be tested and reported early in an epidemic.

Our current knowledge is based on preliminary reports from hospitalized patients and will probably change. From the speed of spread and a single family cluster, it seems likely that there are milder cases and perhaps asymptomatic infection.

What else do I need to know about coronaviruses?

Coronaviruses are a large and diverse group of viruses, many of which are animal viruses. Before the discovery of the 2019-nCoV, six coronaviruses were known to infect humans. Four of these (HKU1, NL63, OC43, and 229E) predominantly caused mild to moderate upper respiratory illness, and they are thought to be responsible for 10%-30% of colds. They occasionally cause viral pneumonia and can be detected by some commercial multiplex panels.

Two other coronaviruses have caused outbreaks of severe respiratory illness in people: SARS, which emerged in Southern China in 2002, and MERS in the Middle East, in 2012. Unlike SARS, sporadic cases of MERS continue to occur.

The current outbreak is caused by 2019-nCoV, a previously unknown beta coronavirus. It is most closely related (~96%) to a bat virus and shares about 80% sequence homology with SARS CoV.

Andrew T. Pavia, MD, is the George and Esther Gross Presidential Professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. He is also director of hospital epidemiology and associate director of antimicrobial stewardship at Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City. Dr. Pavia has disclosed that he has served as a consultant for Genentech, Merck, and Seqirus and that he has served as associate editor for The Sanford Guide.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – Although menopausal hormone therapy is not approved for the prevention of type 2 diabetes because of its complex balance of risks and benefits, it should not be withheld from women with increased risk of type 2 diabetes who seek treatment for menopausal symptoms, according to Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, MD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“During the menopause transition, women accumulate metabolic disturbances, including visceral obesity, systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, director of the Tulane Diabetes Research Program at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, said at the Annual World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “They also lose muscle mass. Some of these abnormalities are partially explained by chronological aging, but they are also caused by estrogen deficiency. There’s a synergism between aging and estrogen deficiency.”

The best evidence of this synergy comes from older trials. Nearly 30 years ago, researchers examined the association between postmenopausal hormone use and the subsequent incidence of non–insulin dependent diabetes in a prospective cohort of 21,028 postmenopausal U.S. women aged 30-55 years, who were enrolled in the Nurse’s Health Study and followed for 12 years (Ann Epidemiol. 1992;2[5]:665-73). They found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes. In a more recent trial, researchers examined the association between use of hormone therapy and new-onset diabetes in 63,624 postmenopausal women who were enrolled in the prospective French cohort of the Etude Epidemiologique de Femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale (E3N) and followed for 15 years (Diabetologia. 2009;52[10]:2092-100). It found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

In the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study, researchers evaluated the effect of hormone therapy on fasting glucose level and incident diabetes in 2,763 postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease (Ann Intern Med. 2003;138[1]:1-9). At 20 U.S. centers, the study participants received 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone, or placebo, and were followed for 4 years. The researchers found that the use of hormone therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by 35%.

According to Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, the strongest data come from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, double-blind trial that compared the effect of daily 0.625 mg conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate with that of placebo during 5.6 years of follow-up (Diabetologia. 2004; 47[7]:1175-87). It showed a 20% decrease in the incidence of diabetes at 5 years. More recently, researchers found that, whether WHI participants took estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone or estrogen alone, the protection from diabetes was present (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:803-6).

In 2006, researchers published results from a meta-analysis of 107 trials in an effort to quantify the effects of hormone therapy on components of metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2006;8[5]:538-54). In women without diabetes, hormone therapy reduced the HOMA-IR (Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance) score by 13% and incidence of type 2 diabetes by 30%. In women with diabetes, hormone therapy reduced fasting glucose by 11% and HOMA-IR by 36%.

The mechanisms by which estrogens improve glucose homeostasis are yet to be fully understood. “One of the most important [mechanisms] is a decrease in abdominal fat, which improves insulin resistance and systemic inflammation,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “However, in the WHI, it was clear that the improvement in HOMA-IR was independent from the body weight and fat. Estrogen has also been found to increase insulin clearance and sensitivity, increase glucose disposal and effectiveness and decrease sarcopenia. There are fewer than 20 studies looking at beta-cell function. Half of them have shown that estrogen improves insulin secretion.”

Route of estrogen administration also comes into play. For example, oral estrogens increase liver exposure to estrogen, increase triglycerides, and increase clotting factors. “That is why oral estrogens are not indicated in women with risk of deep venous thrombosis,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “They also increase inflammatory factors like C-reactive protein. Advantages are that they decrease LDL cholesterol levels and increase HDL cholesterol levels more than transdermal estrogen does.”

The main advantage with transdermal delivery of estrogen, he continued, is that it does not raise triglycerides, clotting factors, or inflammatory factors, and it confers less exposure to the liver. “That’s why it’s the preferred way of administration in women who are obese, who have a risk of DVT, or who have cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “It has a lower suppression of hepatic glucose production, it increases circulating estradiol, and the delivery to nonhepatic tissue is increased. The oral form of estrogen is cheaper, compared with the transdermal form, though. This is a factor that is always taken into account.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis and colleagues were first to evaluate the effect of conjugated estrogens plus bazedoxifene in mice (Mol Metab. 2014;3[2]:177-90). “The idea was that by combining estrogen and bazedoxifene, you have the beneficial effect of estrogen in the tissues but you block estrogen in the breast and in the uterus, and therefore, you prevent the risk of cancer,” he said. “We found that tissue-selective estrogen complexes with bazedoxifene prevent metabolic dysfunction in female mice. It increased energy expenditure and decreased fatty liver.”

In a subsequent pilot study, he and his colleagues assessed the effect of 12 weeks’ treatment with bazedoxifene/conjugated estrogens, compared with placebo, on glucose homeostasis and body composition in 12 postmenopausal women (NCT02237079). “We did not find any significant alterations in the IVGTT [Intravenous Glucose Tolerance Test] but we observed improved fasting beta-cell function and serum glucose in menopausal women with obesity,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said (J Endocr Soc. 2019;3[8]:1583-94).

In a separate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial that he and his colleagues performed in eight postmenopausal women with obesity, the primary endpoint was insulin action as measured by a two-step hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Secondary endpoints were body composition, basal metabolic rate, ectopic fat, and metabolome. “We did not find any difference in systemic insulin action, ectopic fat, or energy expenditure,” he said. “But we found something very interesting. We did a metabolic analysis and found that oral estrogens increase hepatic de novo lipogenesis and liver triacylglycerol production. In other words, the oral estrogens were increasing [triacylglycerol] synthesis from glucose, but it does not accumulate in the liver.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the American Diabetes Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Pfizer.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LOS ANGELES – Although menopausal hormone therapy is not approved for the prevention of type 2 diabetes because of its complex balance of risks and benefits, it should not be withheld from women with increased risk of type 2 diabetes who seek treatment for menopausal symptoms, according to Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, MD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“During the menopause transition, women accumulate metabolic disturbances, including visceral obesity, systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, director of the Tulane Diabetes Research Program at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, said at the Annual World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “They also lose muscle mass. Some of these abnormalities are partially explained by chronological aging, but they are also caused by estrogen deficiency. There’s a synergism between aging and estrogen deficiency.”

The best evidence of this synergy comes from older trials. Nearly 30 years ago, researchers examined the association between postmenopausal hormone use and the subsequent incidence of non–insulin dependent diabetes in a prospective cohort of 21,028 postmenopausal U.S. women aged 30-55 years, who were enrolled in the Nurse’s Health Study and followed for 12 years (Ann Epidemiol. 1992;2[5]:665-73). They found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes. In a more recent trial, researchers examined the association between use of hormone therapy and new-onset diabetes in 63,624 postmenopausal women who were enrolled in the prospective French cohort of the Etude Epidemiologique de Femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale (E3N) and followed for 15 years (Diabetologia. 2009;52[10]:2092-100). It found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

In the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study, researchers evaluated the effect of hormone therapy on fasting glucose level and incident diabetes in 2,763 postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease (Ann Intern Med. 2003;138[1]:1-9). At 20 U.S. centers, the study participants received 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone, or placebo, and were followed for 4 years. The researchers found that the use of hormone therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by 35%.

According to Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, the strongest data come from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, double-blind trial that compared the effect of daily 0.625 mg conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate with that of placebo during 5.6 years of follow-up (Diabetologia. 2004; 47[7]:1175-87). It showed a 20% decrease in the incidence of diabetes at 5 years. More recently, researchers found that, whether WHI participants took estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone or estrogen alone, the protection from diabetes was present (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:803-6).

In 2006, researchers published results from a meta-analysis of 107 trials in an effort to quantify the effects of hormone therapy on components of metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2006;8[5]:538-54). In women without diabetes, hormone therapy reduced the HOMA-IR (Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance) score by 13% and incidence of type 2 diabetes by 30%. In women with diabetes, hormone therapy reduced fasting glucose by 11% and HOMA-IR by 36%.

The mechanisms by which estrogens improve glucose homeostasis are yet to be fully understood. “One of the most important [mechanisms] is a decrease in abdominal fat, which improves insulin resistance and systemic inflammation,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “However, in the WHI, it was clear that the improvement in HOMA-IR was independent from the body weight and fat. Estrogen has also been found to increase insulin clearance and sensitivity, increase glucose disposal and effectiveness and decrease sarcopenia. There are fewer than 20 studies looking at beta-cell function. Half of them have shown that estrogen improves insulin secretion.”

Route of estrogen administration also comes into play. For example, oral estrogens increase liver exposure to estrogen, increase triglycerides, and increase clotting factors. “That is why oral estrogens are not indicated in women with risk of deep venous thrombosis,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “They also increase inflammatory factors like C-reactive protein. Advantages are that they decrease LDL cholesterol levels and increase HDL cholesterol levels more than transdermal estrogen does.”

The main advantage with transdermal delivery of estrogen, he continued, is that it does not raise triglycerides, clotting factors, or inflammatory factors, and it confers less exposure to the liver. “That’s why it’s the preferred way of administration in women who are obese, who have a risk of DVT, or who have cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “It has a lower suppression of hepatic glucose production, it increases circulating estradiol, and the delivery to nonhepatic tissue is increased. The oral form of estrogen is cheaper, compared with the transdermal form, though. This is a factor that is always taken into account.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis and colleagues were first to evaluate the effect of conjugated estrogens plus bazedoxifene in mice (Mol Metab. 2014;3[2]:177-90). “The idea was that by combining estrogen and bazedoxifene, you have the beneficial effect of estrogen in the tissues but you block estrogen in the breast and in the uterus, and therefore, you prevent the risk of cancer,” he said. “We found that tissue-selective estrogen complexes with bazedoxifene prevent metabolic dysfunction in female mice. It increased energy expenditure and decreased fatty liver.”

In a subsequent pilot study, he and his colleagues assessed the effect of 12 weeks’ treatment with bazedoxifene/conjugated estrogens, compared with placebo, on glucose homeostasis and body composition in 12 postmenopausal women (NCT02237079). “We did not find any significant alterations in the IVGTT [Intravenous Glucose Tolerance Test] but we observed improved fasting beta-cell function and serum glucose in menopausal women with obesity,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said (J Endocr Soc. 2019;3[8]:1583-94).

In a separate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial that he and his colleagues performed in eight postmenopausal women with obesity, the primary endpoint was insulin action as measured by a two-step hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Secondary endpoints were body composition, basal metabolic rate, ectopic fat, and metabolome. “We did not find any difference in systemic insulin action, ectopic fat, or energy expenditure,” he said. “But we found something very interesting. We did a metabolic analysis and found that oral estrogens increase hepatic de novo lipogenesis and liver triacylglycerol production. In other words, the oral estrogens were increasing [triacylglycerol] synthesis from glucose, but it does not accumulate in the liver.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the American Diabetes Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Pfizer.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LOS ANGELES – Although menopausal hormone therapy is not approved for the prevention of type 2 diabetes because of its complex balance of risks and benefits, it should not be withheld from women with increased risk of type 2 diabetes who seek treatment for menopausal symptoms, according to Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, MD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“During the menopause transition, women accumulate metabolic disturbances, including visceral obesity, systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and hypertension,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, director of the Tulane Diabetes Research Program at Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, said at the Annual World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “They also lose muscle mass. Some of these abnormalities are partially explained by chronological aging, but they are also caused by estrogen deficiency. There’s a synergism between aging and estrogen deficiency.”

The best evidence of this synergy comes from older trials. Nearly 30 years ago, researchers examined the association between postmenopausal hormone use and the subsequent incidence of non–insulin dependent diabetes in a prospective cohort of 21,028 postmenopausal U.S. women aged 30-55 years, who were enrolled in the Nurse’s Health Study and followed for 12 years (Ann Epidemiol. 1992;2[5]:665-73). They found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes. In a more recent trial, researchers examined the association between use of hormone therapy and new-onset diabetes in 63,624 postmenopausal women who were enrolled in the prospective French cohort of the Etude Epidemiologique de Femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale (E3N) and followed for 15 years (Diabetologia. 2009;52[10]:2092-100). It found that study participants on hormone therapy experienced a 20% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

In the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study, researchers evaluated the effect of hormone therapy on fasting glucose level and incident diabetes in 2,763 postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease (Ann Intern Med. 2003;138[1]:1-9). At 20 U.S. centers, the study participants received 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone, or placebo, and were followed for 4 years. The researchers found that the use of hormone therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by 35%.

According to Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis, the strongest data come from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized, double-blind trial that compared the effect of daily 0.625 mg conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate with that of placebo during 5.6 years of follow-up (Diabetologia. 2004; 47[7]:1175-87). It showed a 20% decrease in the incidence of diabetes at 5 years. More recently, researchers found that, whether WHI participants took estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone or estrogen alone, the protection from diabetes was present (N Engl J Med. 2016;374:803-6).

In 2006, researchers published results from a meta-analysis of 107 trials in an effort to quantify the effects of hormone therapy on components of metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal women (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2006;8[5]:538-54). In women without diabetes, hormone therapy reduced the HOMA-IR (Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance) score by 13% and incidence of type 2 diabetes by 30%. In women with diabetes, hormone therapy reduced fasting glucose by 11% and HOMA-IR by 36%.

The mechanisms by which estrogens improve glucose homeostasis are yet to be fully understood. “One of the most important [mechanisms] is a decrease in abdominal fat, which improves insulin resistance and systemic inflammation,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “However, in the WHI, it was clear that the improvement in HOMA-IR was independent from the body weight and fat. Estrogen has also been found to increase insulin clearance and sensitivity, increase glucose disposal and effectiveness and decrease sarcopenia. There are fewer than 20 studies looking at beta-cell function. Half of them have shown that estrogen improves insulin secretion.”

Route of estrogen administration also comes into play. For example, oral estrogens increase liver exposure to estrogen, increase triglycerides, and increase clotting factors. “That is why oral estrogens are not indicated in women with risk of deep venous thrombosis,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said. “They also increase inflammatory factors like C-reactive protein. Advantages are that they decrease LDL cholesterol levels and increase HDL cholesterol levels more than transdermal estrogen does.”

The main advantage with transdermal delivery of estrogen, he continued, is that it does not raise triglycerides, clotting factors, or inflammatory factors, and it confers less exposure to the liver. “That’s why it’s the preferred way of administration in women who are obese, who have a risk of DVT, or who have cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “It has a lower suppression of hepatic glucose production, it increases circulating estradiol, and the delivery to nonhepatic tissue is increased. The oral form of estrogen is cheaper, compared with the transdermal form, though. This is a factor that is always taken into account.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis and colleagues were first to evaluate the effect of conjugated estrogens plus bazedoxifene in mice (Mol Metab. 2014;3[2]:177-90). “The idea was that by combining estrogen and bazedoxifene, you have the beneficial effect of estrogen in the tissues but you block estrogen in the breast and in the uterus, and therefore, you prevent the risk of cancer,” he said. “We found that tissue-selective estrogen complexes with bazedoxifene prevent metabolic dysfunction in female mice. It increased energy expenditure and decreased fatty liver.”

In a subsequent pilot study, he and his colleagues assessed the effect of 12 weeks’ treatment with bazedoxifene/conjugated estrogens, compared with placebo, on glucose homeostasis and body composition in 12 postmenopausal women (NCT02237079). “We did not find any significant alterations in the IVGTT [Intravenous Glucose Tolerance Test] but we observed improved fasting beta-cell function and serum glucose in menopausal women with obesity,” Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis said (J Endocr Soc. 2019;3[8]:1583-94).

In a separate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial that he and his colleagues performed in eight postmenopausal women with obesity, the primary endpoint was insulin action as measured by a two-step hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Secondary endpoints were body composition, basal metabolic rate, ectopic fat, and metabolome. “We did not find any difference in systemic insulin action, ectopic fat, or energy expenditure,” he said. “But we found something very interesting. We did a metabolic analysis and found that oral estrogens increase hepatic de novo lipogenesis and liver triacylglycerol production. In other words, the oral estrogens were increasing [triacylglycerol] synthesis from glucose, but it does not accumulate in the liver.”

Dr. Mauvais-Jarvis disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the American Diabetes Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Pfizer.
 

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A Chicago woman in her 60s who tested positive for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) after returning from Wuhan, China, earlier this month has infected her husband, becoming the first known instance of person-to-person transmission of the 2019-nCoV in the United States.

James Gathany/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Limited person-to-person spread of this new virus outside of China has already been seen in nine close contacts, where travelers were infected and transmitted the virus to someone else,” Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a press briefing on Jan. 30, 2020. “However, the full picture of how easy and how sustainable this virus can spread is unclear. Today’s news underscores the important risk-dependent exposure. The vast majority of Americans have not had recent travel to China, where sustained human-to-human transmission is occurring. Individuals who are close personal contacts of cases, though, could have a risk.”

The affected man, also in his 60s, is the spouse of the first confirmed travel-associated case of 2019-nCoV to be reported in the state of Illinois, according to Ngozi O. Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. The man had no history of recent travel to China. “This person-to-person spread was between two very close contacts: a wife and husband,” said Dr. Ezike, who added that 21 individuals in the state are under investigation for 2019-nCoV. “The virus is not spreading widely across the community. At this time, we are not recommending that people in the general public take additional precautions such as canceling activities or avoiding going out. While there is concern with this second case, public health officials are actively monitoring close contacts, including health care workers, and we believe that people in Illinois are at low risk.”

Jennifer Layden, MD, state epidemiologist at the Illinois Department of Public Health, said that the infected Chicago woman returned from Wuhan, China on Jan. 13, 2020. She is hospitalized in stable condition “and continues to do well,” Dr. Layden said. “Public health officials have been actively and closely monitoring individuals who had contacts with her, including her husband, who had close contact for symptoms. He recently began reporting symptoms and was immediately admitted to the hospital and placed in an isolation room, where he is in stable condition. We are actively monitoring individuals such as health care workers, household contacts, and others who were in contact with either of the confirmed cases in the goal to contain and reduce the risk of additional transmission.”

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, expects that more cases of 2019-nCoV will transpire in the United States.

“More cases means the potential for more person-to-person spread,” Dr. Messonnier said. “We’re trying to strike a balance in our response right now. We want to be aggressive, but we want our actions to be evidence-based and appropriate for the current circumstance. For example, CDC does not currently recommend use of face masks for the general public. The virus is not spreading in the general community.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A Chicago woman in her 60s who tested positive for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) after returning from Wuhan, China, earlier this month has infected her husband, becoming the first known instance of person-to-person transmission of the 2019-nCoV in the United States.

James Gathany/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Limited person-to-person spread of this new virus outside of China has already been seen in nine close contacts, where travelers were infected and transmitted the virus to someone else,” Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a press briefing on Jan. 30, 2020. “However, the full picture of how easy and how sustainable this virus can spread is unclear. Today’s news underscores the important risk-dependent exposure. The vast majority of Americans have not had recent travel to China, where sustained human-to-human transmission is occurring. Individuals who are close personal contacts of cases, though, could have a risk.”

The affected man, also in his 60s, is the spouse of the first confirmed travel-associated case of 2019-nCoV to be reported in the state of Illinois, according to Ngozi O. Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. The man had no history of recent travel to China. “This person-to-person spread was between two very close contacts: a wife and husband,” said Dr. Ezike, who added that 21 individuals in the state are under investigation for 2019-nCoV. “The virus is not spreading widely across the community. At this time, we are not recommending that people in the general public take additional precautions such as canceling activities or avoiding going out. While there is concern with this second case, public health officials are actively monitoring close contacts, including health care workers, and we believe that people in Illinois are at low risk.”

Jennifer Layden, MD, state epidemiologist at the Illinois Department of Public Health, said that the infected Chicago woman returned from Wuhan, China on Jan. 13, 2020. She is hospitalized in stable condition “and continues to do well,” Dr. Layden said. “Public health officials have been actively and closely monitoring individuals who had contacts with her, including her husband, who had close contact for symptoms. He recently began reporting symptoms and was immediately admitted to the hospital and placed in an isolation room, where he is in stable condition. We are actively monitoring individuals such as health care workers, household contacts, and others who were in contact with either of the confirmed cases in the goal to contain and reduce the risk of additional transmission.”

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, expects that more cases of 2019-nCoV will transpire in the United States.

“More cases means the potential for more person-to-person spread,” Dr. Messonnier said. “We’re trying to strike a balance in our response right now. We want to be aggressive, but we want our actions to be evidence-based and appropriate for the current circumstance. For example, CDC does not currently recommend use of face masks for the general public. The virus is not spreading in the general community.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A Chicago woman in her 60s who tested positive for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) after returning from Wuhan, China, earlier this month has infected her husband, becoming the first known instance of person-to-person transmission of the 2019-nCoV in the United States.

James Gathany/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Limited person-to-person spread of this new virus outside of China has already been seen in nine close contacts, where travelers were infected and transmitted the virus to someone else,” Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during a press briefing on Jan. 30, 2020. “However, the full picture of how easy and how sustainable this virus can spread is unclear. Today’s news underscores the important risk-dependent exposure. The vast majority of Americans have not had recent travel to China, where sustained human-to-human transmission is occurring. Individuals who are close personal contacts of cases, though, could have a risk.”

The affected man, also in his 60s, is the spouse of the first confirmed travel-associated case of 2019-nCoV to be reported in the state of Illinois, according to Ngozi O. Ezike, MD, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health. The man had no history of recent travel to China. “This person-to-person spread was between two very close contacts: a wife and husband,” said Dr. Ezike, who added that 21 individuals in the state are under investigation for 2019-nCoV. “The virus is not spreading widely across the community. At this time, we are not recommending that people in the general public take additional precautions such as canceling activities or avoiding going out. While there is concern with this second case, public health officials are actively monitoring close contacts, including health care workers, and we believe that people in Illinois are at low risk.”

Jennifer Layden, MD, state epidemiologist at the Illinois Department of Public Health, said that the infected Chicago woman returned from Wuhan, China on Jan. 13, 2020. She is hospitalized in stable condition “and continues to do well,” Dr. Layden said. “Public health officials have been actively and closely monitoring individuals who had contacts with her, including her husband, who had close contact for symptoms. He recently began reporting symptoms and was immediately admitted to the hospital and placed in an isolation room, where he is in stable condition. We are actively monitoring individuals such as health care workers, household contacts, and others who were in contact with either of the confirmed cases in the goal to contain and reduce the risk of additional transmission.”

Nancy Messonnier, MD, director, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, expects that more cases of 2019-nCoV will transpire in the United States.

“More cases means the potential for more person-to-person spread,” Dr. Messonnier said. “We’re trying to strike a balance in our response right now. We want to be aggressive, but we want our actions to be evidence-based and appropriate for the current circumstance. For example, CDC does not currently recommend use of face masks for the general public. The virus is not spreading in the general community.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

WASHINGTON – Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes remains controversial, with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association firmly recommending insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy, and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine more accepting of metformin as a “reasonable and safe first-line” alternative to insulin and stating that there are no strong data supporting metformin over the sulfonylurea glyburide.

If there’s one main take-away, Mark B. Landon, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America, it was that “the primary concern” about the use of oral agents for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.

“The claim that long-term safety data are not available for any oral agent is probably the most valid warning [of any of the concerns voiced by professional organizations],” said Dr. Landon, Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Otherwise, he said, there are not enough data to firmly prioritize the drugs most commonly used for GDM, and “the superiority of insulin over oral agents simply remains questionable.”

ACOG’s 2017 level A recommendation for insulin as the first-line option when pharmacologic treatment is needed for treating GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130[1]:e17-37) was followed in 2018 by another updated practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64) that considered several meta-analyses published in 2017 and reiterated a preference for insulin.

Those recent meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM show that the available literature is generally of “poor trial quality,” and that studies are small and not designed to assess equivalence or noninferiority, Mark Turrentine, MD, chair of ACOG’s committee on practice bulletins, said in an interview. “Taking that into account and [considering] that oral antidiabetic medications are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration [for the treatment of GDM], that they cross the placenta, and that we currently lack long-term neonatal safety data ... we felt that insulin is the preferred treatment.”

In its 2017 and 2018 bulletins, ACOG said that metformin is a “reasonable alternative choice” for women who decline insulin therapy or who may be unable to safely administer it (a level B recommendation). The 2018 practice bulletin mentions one additional factor: affordability. “Insurance companies aren’t always covering [insulin],” said Dr. Turrentine, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “It’s a challenge – no question.”

ACOG says glyburide should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment, “because, in most studies, it does not yield outcomes equivalent to insulin or metformin,” Dr. Turrentine emphasized.
 

Glyburide’s role

Dr. Landon took issue with ACOG’s stance on the sulfonylurea. “Frankly, I think this [conclusion] is debatable,” he said. The trend in the United States – “at least after the 2017 ACOG document came out”– has been toward use of metformin over glyburide when an oral agent is [used], but “I think glyburide has been unfairly trashed. It probably still has a place.”

As Dr. Landon sees it, research published in 2015 put a damper on the use of glyburide, which “had become the number one agent” after an earlier, seminal trial, led by Oded Langer, MD, had shown equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive either insulin or glyburide (N Engl J Med. 2000;343;1134-8). The trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, but there were no significant differences in neonatal complications, Dr. Landon said.

One of the 2015 studies – a large, retrospective, population-based study of more than 9,000 women with GDM treated with glyburide or insulin – showed a higher risk of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.41), hypoglycemia in the newborn (RR, 1.40), and large-for-gestational age (RR, 1.43) with glyburide, compared with insulin (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8).

A meta-analysis of glyburide, metformin, and insulin showed significant differences between glyburide and insulin in birth weight, macrosomia (RR, 2.62), and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR, 2.04; BMJ. 2015;350;h102). However, “this was basically a conglomeration of studies with about 50 [individuals] in each arm, and in which entry criteria for the diagnosis of GDM were rather heterogeneous,” said Dr. Landon. “There are real problems with this and other meta-analyses.”

The authors of a 2018 multicenter, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial of about 900 women concluded that their study failed to show that the use of glyburide, compared with insulin, does not result in a greater frequency of perinatal complications. The authors also wrote, however, that the “increase in perinatal complications [with glyburide] may be no more than 10.5%, compared with insulin” (JAMA. 2018;319[17]:1773-80).

That increase, Dr. Landon said, was “not an absolute 10%, but 10% of the complication rate, which probably translates to about 2%.” The only component of a composite outcome (including macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia) that was significantly different, he noted, was hypoglycemia, which affected 12.2% of neonates in the glyburide group and 7.2% in the insulin group.

Glyburide’s role may well be substantiated in the future, Dr. Landon said during a discussion period at the meeting, through research underway at the University of Pittsburgh aimed at tailoring treatment to the underlying pathophysiology of a patient’s GDM.

The MATCh-GDM study (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) is randomizing women to receive usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism – metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. The study’s principal investigator, Maisa Feghali, MD, of the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, stressed in a presentation on the study that GDM is a heterogeneous condition and that research is needed to understand the impact of GDM subtypes on treatment response.
 

Metformin outcomes

Concerns about the impact of metformin on short-term perinatal outcomes focus on preterm birth, Dr. Landon said. The only study to date that has shown an increased rate of prematurity, however, is the “seminal” Metformin in Gestational Diabetes (MiG) trial led by Janet A. Rowan, MBChB, that randomized 751 women with GDM in Australia and New Zealand to treatment with metformin or insulin. The researchers found no significant differences between a composite of neonatal complications but did establish that severe hypoglycemia was less common in the metformin group and preterm birth was more common (N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2003-15).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes of metformin, compared with insulin, found that metformin did not increase preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2017;34[1]:27-36). And while the 2015 BMJ meta-analysis found that metformin was associated with higher rates of preterm birth (RR, 1.50), the increased risk “was all driven by the Rowan study,” Dr. Landon said. The 2015 meta-analysis also found that metformin was associated with less maternal weight gain and fewer infants who were large for gestational age.

Metformin is also tainted by high rates of failure in GDM. In the 2008 Rowan study, 46% of patients on metformin failed to achieve glycemic control. “But this is a classic half-full, half-empty [phenomena],” Dr. Landon said. “Some people say this isn’t good, but on the other hand, 54% avoided insulin.”

Indeed, the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), in its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, said that oral hypoglycemic agents that are used as monotherapy work in “more than half” of GDM pregnancies. The need for adjunctive insulin to achieve glycemic control ranges between 26% and 46% for women using metformin, and 4% and 16% for women using glyburide, it says.

In the society’s view, recent meta-analyses and systemic reviews “support the efficacy and safety of oral agents,” and “although concerns have been raised for more frequent adverse neonatal outcomes with glyburide, including macrosomia and hypoglycemia, the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over the other remains limited.”

The society says that the difference between its statement and the ACOG recommendations is “based on the values placed by different experts and providers on the available evidence,” and it adds that more long-term data are needed.

But as Dr. Landon said, the SMFM is “a little more forgiving” in its interpretation of a limited body of literature. And clinicians, in the meantime, have to navigate the controversy. “The professional organizations don’t make it easy for [us],” he said. At this point, “insulin does not cross the placenta, and the oral agents do cross it. Informed consent is absolutely necessary when choosing oral agents for treating GDM.”
 

Offspring well-being

Of greater concern than neonatal outcomes are the potential long-term issues for offspring, Dr. Landon said. On the one hand, it is theorized that metformin may protect beta-cell function in offspring and thereby reduce the cross-generational effects of obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, it is theorized that the drug may cause a decrease in cell-cycle proliferation, which could have “unknown fetal programming effects,” and it may inhibit the mTOR signaling pathway, thus restricting the transport of glucose and amino acids across the placenta, he said. (Findings from in vitro research have suggested that glyburide treatment in GDM might be associated with enhanced transport across the placenta, he noted.)

Long-term follow-up studies of offspring are “clearly needed,” Dr. Landon said. At this point, in regard to long-term safety, he and other experts are concerned primarily about the potential for obesity and metabolic dysfunction in offspring who are exposed to metformin in utero. They are watching follow-up from Dr. Rowan’s MiG trial, as well as elsewhere in the literature, on metformin-exposed offspring from mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome.

A follow-up analysis of offspring from the MiG trial found that children of women with GDM who were exposed to metformin had larger measures of subcutaneous fat at age 2 years, compared with children of mothers treated with insulin alone, but that overall body fat was the same, Dr. Landon noted. The investigators postulated that these children may have less visceral fat and a more favorable pattern of fat distribution (Diab Care. 2011;34:2279-84).

A recently published follow-up analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is cause for more concern, he said. That analysis showed that offspring exposed to metformin in utero had a higher body mass index and an increased prevalence of obesity or overweight at age 4 years, compared with placebo groups (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103[4]:1612-21).

That analysis of metformin-exposed offspring in the context of polycystic ovary syndrome was published after the SMFM statement, as was another follow-up analysis of MiG trial offspring – this one, at ages 7-9 years – that showed an increase in weight, size, and fat mass in one of two subsets analyzed, despite no difference in large-for-gestational age rates between the metformin- and insulin-exposed offspring (BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2018;6[1]: e000456).

In 2018, a group of 17 prominent diabetes and maternal-fetal medicine researchers cited these findings in a response to the SMFM statement and cautioned against the widespread adoption of metformin use during pregnancy, writing that, based on “both pharmacologic and randomized trial evidence that metformin may create an atypical intrauterine environment ... we believe it is premature to embrace metformin as equivalent to insulin or as superior to glyburide, and that patients should be counseled on the limited long-term safety data and potential for adverse childhood metabolic effects” (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219[4]:367.e1-7).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

If you’ve knocked yourself out to earn a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) bonus payment, it’s pretty safe to say that getting a 1.68% payment boost probably didn’t feel like a “win” that was worth the effort.

And although it saved you from having a negative 5% payment adjustment, many physicians don’t feel that it was worth the effort.

On Jan. 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the 2020 payouts for MIPS.

Based on 2018 participation, the bonus for those who scored a perfect 100 is only a 1.68% boost in Medicare reimbursement, slightly lower than last year’s 1.88%. This decline comes as no surprise as the agency leader admits: “As the program matures, we expect that the increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create a smaller distribution of positive payment adjustments.” Overall, more than 97% of participants avoided having a negative 5% payment adjustment.

Indeed, these bonus monies are based on a short-term appropriation of extra funds from Congress. After these temporary funds are no longer available, there will be little, if any, monies to distribute as the program is based on a “losers-feed-the-winners” construct.

It may be very tempting for many physicians to decide to ignore MIPS, with the rationale that 1.68% is not worth the effort. But don’t let your foot off the gas pedal yet, since the penalty for not participating in 2020 is a substantial 9%. Physicians should make sure that they, at minimum, achieve the 45 points necessary to avoid that pitfall this reporting year.

However, it is certainly time to reconsider efforts to participate at the highest level.
 

Should you or shouldn’t you bother with MIPS?

Let’s say you have $75,000 in revenue from Medicare Part B per year. Depending on the services you offer in your practice, that equates to 500-750 encounters with Medicare beneficiaries per year. (A reminder that MIPS affects only Part B; Medicare Advantage plans do not partake in the program.)

The recent announcement reveals that perfection would equate to an additional $1,260 per year. That’s only if you received the full 100 points; if you were simply an “exceptional performer,” the government will allot an additional $157. That’s less than you get paid for a single office visit.

The difference between perfection and compliance is approximately $1,000. Failure to participate, however, knocks $6,750 off your bottom line. Clearly, that’s a substantial financial loss that would affect most practices. Obviously, the numbers change if you have higher – or lower – Medicare revenue, but it’s important to do the math.

Why? Physicians are spending a significant amount of money to comply with the program requirements. This includes substantial payments to registries – typically $200 to >$1,000 per year – to report the quality measures for the program; electronic health record (EHR) systems, many of which require additional funding for the “upgrade” to a MIPS-compatible system, are also a sizable investment.

These hard costs pale in comparison with the time spent on understanding the ever-changing requirements of the program and the process by which your practice will implement them. Take, for example, something as innocuous as the required “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

You first must understand the elements of the measure: What is a “referral loop?” When do we need to generate one? To whom shall it be sent? What needs to be included in “health information?” What is the electronic address to which we should route the information? How do we obtain that address? Then you must determine how your EHR system captures and reports it.

Only then comes the hard part: How are we going to implement this? That’s only one of more than a dozen required elements: six quality measures, two (to four) improvement activities, and four promoting interoperability requirements. Each one of these elements has a host of requirements, all listed on multipage specification sheets.

The government does not seem to be listening. John Cullen, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, testified at the Senate Finance Committee in May 2019 that MIPS “has created a burdensome and extremely complex program that has increased practice costs ... ” Yet, later that year, CMS issued another hefty ruling that outlines significant changes to the program, despite the fact that it’s in its fourth performance year.
 

Turning frustration into action

Frustration or even anger may be one reaction, but now is an opportune time to determine your investment in the program. At a minimum, it’s vital to understand and meet the threshold to avoid the penalty. It’s been shifting to date, but it’s now set at 9% for perpetuity.

First, it’s crucial to check on your participation status. CMS revealed that the participation database was recently corrected for so-called inconsistencies, so it pays to double-check. It only takes seconds: Insert your NPI in the QPP Participation Status Tool to determine your eligibility for 2020.

In 2020, the threshold to avoid the penalty is 45 points. To get the 45 points, practices must participate in two improvement activities, which is not difficult as there are 118 options. That will garner 15 points. Then there are 45 points available from the quality category; you need at least 30 to reach the 45-point threshold for penalty avoidance.
 

Smart MIPS hacks that can help you

To obtain the additional 30 points, turn your attention to the quality category. There are 268 quality measures; choose at least six to measure. If you report directly from your EHR system, you’ll get a bonus point for each reported measure, plus one just for trying. (There are a few other opportunities for bonus points, such as improving your scores over last year.) Those bonus points give you a base with which to work, but getting to 45 will require effort to report successfully on at least a couple of the measures.

The quality category has a total of 100 points available, which are converted to 45 toward your composite score. Since you need 30 to reach that magical 45 (if 15 were attained from improvement activities), that means you must come up with 75 points in the quality category. Between the bonus points and measuring a handful of measures successfully through the year, you’ll achieve this threshold.

There are two other categories in the program: promoting interoperability (PI) and cost. The PI category mirrors the old “meaningful use” program; however, it has become increasingly difficult over the years. If you think that you can meet the required elements, you can pick up 25 more points toward your composite score.

Cost is a bit of an unknown, as the scoring is based on a retrospective review of your claims. You’ll likely pick up a few more points on this 15-point category, but there’s no method to determine performance until after the reporting period. Therefore, be cautious about relying on this category.

The best MIPS hack, however, is if you are a small practice. CMS – remarkably – defines a “small practice” as 15 or fewer eligible professionals. If you qualify under this paradigm, you have multiple options to ease compliance:

Apply for a “hardship exemption” simply on the basis of being small; the exemption relates to the promoting operability category, shifting those points to the quality category.

Gain three points per quality measure, regardless of data completeness; this compares to just one point for other physicians.

Capture all of the points available from the Improvement Activities category by confirming participation with just a single activity. (This also applies to all physicians in rural or Health Professional Shortage Areas.)

In the event that you don’t qualify as a “small practice” or you’re still falling short of the requirements, CMS allows for the ultimate “out”: You can apply for exemption on the basis of an “extreme and uncontrollable circumstance.” The applications for these exceptions open this summer.

Unless you qualify for the program exemption, it’s important to keep pace with the program to ensure that you reach the 45-point threshold. It may not, however, be worthwhile to gear up for all 100 points unless your estimate of the potential return – and what it costs you to get there – reveals otherwise. MIPS is not going anywhere; the program is written into the law.

But that doesn’t mean that CMS can’t make tweaks and updates. Hopefully, the revisions won’t create even more administrative burden as the program is quickly turning into a big stick with only a small carrot at the end.

Elizabeth Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates in Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A total of 165 persons in the United States are under investigation for infection with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), with 68 testing negative and only 5 confirming positive, according to data presented Jan. 29 during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) briefing. 

The remaining samples are in transit or are being processed at the CDC for testing, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the briefing.

“The genetic sequence for all five viruses detected in the United States to date has been uploaded to the CDC website,” she said. “We are working quickly through the process to get the CDC-developed test into the hands of public health partners in the U.S. and internationally.”

Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is expanding screening efforts to U.S. ports of entry that house CDC quarantine stations. Also, in collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency is expanding distribution of travel health education materials to all travelers from China.

“The good news here is that, despite an aggressive public health investigation to find new cases [of 2019-nCoV], we have not,” she said. “The situation in China is concerning, however, we are looking hard here in the U.S. We will continue to be proactive. I still expect that we will find additional cases.”

In another development, the federal government facilitated the return of a plane full of U.S. citizens living in Wuhan, China, to March Air Reserve Force Base in Riverside County, Calif. “We have taken every precaution to ensure their safety while also continuing to protect the health of our nation and the people around them,” Dr. Messonnier said.

All 195 passengers have been screened, monitored, and evaluated by medical personnel “every step of the way,” including before takeoff, during the flight, during a refueling stop in Alaska, and again upon landing at March Air Reserve Force Base on Jan. 28. “All 195 patients are without the symptoms of the novel coronavirus, and all have been assigned living quarters at the Air Force base,” Dr. Messonnier said.

The CDC has launched a second stage of further screening and information gathering from the passengers, who will be offered testing as part of a thorough risk assessment.

“I understand that many people in the U.S. are worried about this virus and whether it will affect them,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Outbreaks like this are always concerning, particularly when a new virus is emerging. But we are well prepared and working closely with federal, state, and local partners to protect our communities and others nationwide from this public health threat. At this time, we continue to believe that the immediate health risk from this new virus to the general American public is low.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A total of 165 persons in the United States are under investigation for infection with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), with 68 testing negative and only 5 confirming positive, according to data presented Jan. 29 during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) briefing. 

The remaining samples are in transit or are being processed at the CDC for testing, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the briefing.

“The genetic sequence for all five viruses detected in the United States to date has been uploaded to the CDC website,” she said. “We are working quickly through the process to get the CDC-developed test into the hands of public health partners in the U.S. and internationally.”

Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is expanding screening efforts to U.S. ports of entry that house CDC quarantine stations. Also, in collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency is expanding distribution of travel health education materials to all travelers from China.

“The good news here is that, despite an aggressive public health investigation to find new cases [of 2019-nCoV], we have not,” she said. “The situation in China is concerning, however, we are looking hard here in the U.S. We will continue to be proactive. I still expect that we will find additional cases.”

In another development, the federal government facilitated the return of a plane full of U.S. citizens living in Wuhan, China, to March Air Reserve Force Base in Riverside County, Calif. “We have taken every precaution to ensure their safety while also continuing to protect the health of our nation and the people around them,” Dr. Messonnier said.

All 195 passengers have been screened, monitored, and evaluated by medical personnel “every step of the way,” including before takeoff, during the flight, during a refueling stop in Alaska, and again upon landing at March Air Reserve Force Base on Jan. 28. “All 195 patients are without the symptoms of the novel coronavirus, and all have been assigned living quarters at the Air Force base,” Dr. Messonnier said.

The CDC has launched a second stage of further screening and information gathering from the passengers, who will be offered testing as part of a thorough risk assessment.

“I understand that many people in the U.S. are worried about this virus and whether it will affect them,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Outbreaks like this are always concerning, particularly when a new virus is emerging. But we are well prepared and working closely with federal, state, and local partners to protect our communities and others nationwide from this public health threat. At this time, we continue to believe that the immediate health risk from this new virus to the general American public is low.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A total of 165 persons in the United States are under investigation for infection with the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), with 68 testing negative and only 5 confirming positive, according to data presented Jan. 29 during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) briefing. 

The remaining samples are in transit or are being processed at the CDC for testing, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the briefing.

“The genetic sequence for all five viruses detected in the United States to date has been uploaded to the CDC website,” she said. “We are working quickly through the process to get the CDC-developed test into the hands of public health partners in the U.S. and internationally.”

Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is expanding screening efforts to U.S. ports of entry that house CDC quarantine stations. Also, in collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency is expanding distribution of travel health education materials to all travelers from China.

“The good news here is that, despite an aggressive public health investigation to find new cases [of 2019-nCoV], we have not,” she said. “The situation in China is concerning, however, we are looking hard here in the U.S. We will continue to be proactive. I still expect that we will find additional cases.”

In another development, the federal government facilitated the return of a plane full of U.S. citizens living in Wuhan, China, to March Air Reserve Force Base in Riverside County, Calif. “We have taken every precaution to ensure their safety while also continuing to protect the health of our nation and the people around them,” Dr. Messonnier said.

All 195 passengers have been screened, monitored, and evaluated by medical personnel “every step of the way,” including before takeoff, during the flight, during a refueling stop in Alaska, and again upon landing at March Air Reserve Force Base on Jan. 28. “All 195 patients are without the symptoms of the novel coronavirus, and all have been assigned living quarters at the Air Force base,” Dr. Messonnier said.

The CDC has launched a second stage of further screening and information gathering from the passengers, who will be offered testing as part of a thorough risk assessment.

“I understand that many people in the U.S. are worried about this virus and whether it will affect them,” Dr. Messonnier said. “Outbreaks like this are always concerning, particularly when a new virus is emerging. But we are well prepared and working closely with federal, state, and local partners to protect our communities and others nationwide from this public health threat. At this time, we continue to believe that the immediate health risk from this new virus to the general American public is low.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The cost of health care is keeping more Americans from seeing a doctor, even as the number of individuals with insurance coverage increases, according to a new study.

“Despite short-term gains owing to the [Affordable Care Act], over the past 20 years the portion of adults aged 18-64 years unable to see a physician owing to the cost increased, mostly because of an increase among persons with insurance,” Laura Hawks, MD, of Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues wrote in a new research report published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In 2017, nearly one-fifth of individuals with any chronic condition (diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular disease) said they were unable to see a physician owing to cost,” they continued.

Researchers examined 20 years of data (January 1998 through December 2017) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to identify trends in unmet need for physician and preventive services.

Among adults aged 18-64 years who responded to the survey in 1998 and 2017, uninsurance decreased by 2.1 percentage points, falling from 16.9% to 14.8%. But at the same time, the portion of adults who were unable to see a physician because of cost rose by 2.7 percentage points, from 11.4% to 15.7%. Looking specifically at adults who had insurance coverage, the researchers found that cost was a barrier for 11.5% of them in 2017, up from 7.1% in 1998.

These results come against a backdrop of growing medical costs, increasing deductibles and copayments, an increasing use of cost containment measures like prior authorization, and narrow provider networks in the wake of the transition to value-based payment structures, the authors noted.

“Our finding that financial access to physician care worsened is concerning,” Dr. Hawks and her colleagues wrote. “Persons with conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and poor health status risk substantial harms if they forgo physician care. Financial barriers to care have been associated with increased hospitalizations and worse health outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and hypertension and increased morbidity among patients with diabetes.”

One of the trends highlighted by the study authors is the growing number of employers offering plans with a high deductible.

“Enrollment in a high-deductible health plan, which has become increasingly common in the last decade, a trend uninterrupted by the ACA, is associated with forgoing needed care, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status,” the authors wrote. “Other changes in insurance benefit design, such as imposing tiered copayments and coinsurance obligations, eliminating coverage for some services (e.g., eyeglasses) and narrowing provider networks (which can force some patients to go out-of-network for care) may also have undermined the affordability of care.”

There was some positive news among the findings, however.

“The main encouraging finding from our analysis is the increase in the proportion of persons – both insured and uninsured – receiving cholesterol checks and flu shots,” Dr. Hawk and her colleagues wrote, adding that this increase “may be attributable to the increasing implementation of quality metrics, financial incentives, and improved systems for the delivery of these services.”

However, not all preventive services that had cost barriers eliminated under the ACA saw improvement, such as cancer screening. They note that the proportion of women who did not receive mammography increased during the study period and then plateaued, but did not improve following the implementation of the ACA. The authors described the reasons for this as “unclear.”

Dr. Hawks received funding support from an Institutional National Research Service award and from Cambridge Health Alliance, her employer. Other authors reported membership in Physicians for a National Health Program.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hawks L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6538.

The cost of health care is keeping more Americans from seeing a doctor, even as the number of individuals with insurance coverage increases, according to a new study.

“Despite short-term gains owing to the [Affordable Care Act], over the past 20 years the portion of adults aged 18-64 years unable to see a physician owing to the cost increased, mostly because of an increase among persons with insurance,” Laura Hawks, MD, of Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues wrote in a new research report published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In 2017, nearly one-fifth of individuals with any chronic condition (diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular disease) said they were unable to see a physician owing to cost,” they continued.

Researchers examined 20 years of data (January 1998 through December 2017) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to identify trends in unmet need for physician and preventive services.

Among adults aged 18-64 years who responded to the survey in 1998 and 2017, uninsurance decreased by 2.1 percentage points, falling from 16.9% to 14.8%. But at the same time, the portion of adults who were unable to see a physician because of cost rose by 2.7 percentage points, from 11.4% to 15.7%. Looking specifically at adults who had insurance coverage, the researchers found that cost was a barrier for 11.5% of them in 2017, up from 7.1% in 1998.

These results come against a backdrop of growing medical costs, increasing deductibles and copayments, an increasing use of cost containment measures like prior authorization, and narrow provider networks in the wake of the transition to value-based payment structures, the authors noted.

“Our finding that financial access to physician care worsened is concerning,” Dr. Hawks and her colleagues wrote. “Persons with conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and poor health status risk substantial harms if they forgo physician care. Financial barriers to care have been associated with increased hospitalizations and worse health outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and hypertension and increased morbidity among patients with diabetes.”

One of the trends highlighted by the study authors is the growing number of employers offering plans with a high deductible.

“Enrollment in a high-deductible health plan, which has become increasingly common in the last decade, a trend uninterrupted by the ACA, is associated with forgoing needed care, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status,” the authors wrote. “Other changes in insurance benefit design, such as imposing tiered copayments and coinsurance obligations, eliminating coverage for some services (e.g., eyeglasses) and narrowing provider networks (which can force some patients to go out-of-network for care) may also have undermined the affordability of care.”

There was some positive news among the findings, however.

“The main encouraging finding from our analysis is the increase in the proportion of persons – both insured and uninsured – receiving cholesterol checks and flu shots,” Dr. Hawk and her colleagues wrote, adding that this increase “may be attributable to the increasing implementation of quality metrics, financial incentives, and improved systems for the delivery of these services.”

However, not all preventive services that had cost barriers eliminated under the ACA saw improvement, such as cancer screening. They note that the proportion of women who did not receive mammography increased during the study period and then plateaued, but did not improve following the implementation of the ACA. The authors described the reasons for this as “unclear.”

Dr. Hawks received funding support from an Institutional National Research Service award and from Cambridge Health Alliance, her employer. Other authors reported membership in Physicians for a National Health Program.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hawks L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6538.

The cost of health care is keeping more Americans from seeing a doctor, even as the number of individuals with insurance coverage increases, according to a new study.

“Despite short-term gains owing to the [Affordable Care Act], over the past 20 years the portion of adults aged 18-64 years unable to see a physician owing to the cost increased, mostly because of an increase among persons with insurance,” Laura Hawks, MD, of Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues wrote in a new research report published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In 2017, nearly one-fifth of individuals with any chronic condition (diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular disease) said they were unable to see a physician owing to cost,” they continued.

Researchers examined 20 years of data (January 1998 through December 2017) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to identify trends in unmet need for physician and preventive services.

Among adults aged 18-64 years who responded to the survey in 1998 and 2017, uninsurance decreased by 2.1 percentage points, falling from 16.9% to 14.8%. But at the same time, the portion of adults who were unable to see a physician because of cost rose by 2.7 percentage points, from 11.4% to 15.7%. Looking specifically at adults who had insurance coverage, the researchers found that cost was a barrier for 11.5% of them in 2017, up from 7.1% in 1998.

These results come against a backdrop of growing medical costs, increasing deductibles and copayments, an increasing use of cost containment measures like prior authorization, and narrow provider networks in the wake of the transition to value-based payment structures, the authors noted.

“Our finding that financial access to physician care worsened is concerning,” Dr. Hawks and her colleagues wrote. “Persons with conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and poor health status risk substantial harms if they forgo physician care. Financial barriers to care have been associated with increased hospitalizations and worse health outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease and hypertension and increased morbidity among patients with diabetes.”

One of the trends highlighted by the study authors is the growing number of employers offering plans with a high deductible.

“Enrollment in a high-deductible health plan, which has become increasingly common in the last decade, a trend uninterrupted by the ACA, is associated with forgoing needed care, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status,” the authors wrote. “Other changes in insurance benefit design, such as imposing tiered copayments and coinsurance obligations, eliminating coverage for some services (e.g., eyeglasses) and narrowing provider networks (which can force some patients to go out-of-network for care) may also have undermined the affordability of care.”

There was some positive news among the findings, however.

“The main encouraging finding from our analysis is the increase in the proportion of persons – both insured and uninsured – receiving cholesterol checks and flu shots,” Dr. Hawk and her colleagues wrote, adding that this increase “may be attributable to the increasing implementation of quality metrics, financial incentives, and improved systems for the delivery of these services.”

However, not all preventive services that had cost barriers eliminated under the ACA saw improvement, such as cancer screening. They note that the proportion of women who did not receive mammography increased during the study period and then plateaued, but did not improve following the implementation of the ACA. The authors described the reasons for this as “unclear.”

Dr. Hawks received funding support from an Institutional National Research Service award and from Cambridge Health Alliance, her employer. Other authors reported membership in Physicians for a National Health Program.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hawks L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6538.