Effects of Prenatal Exposure to Second-Generation Antipsychotics on Development and Behavior Among Preschool-Aged Children: Preliminary Results From the National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

Objective: Data are lacking on the neurodevelopmental outcomes of children prenatally exposed to second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). The objective of this study is to examine neurodevelopmental outcomes of children exposed in utero to SGAs compared to those unexposed in a cohort of mothers with psychiatric morbidity.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of preschool-aged children whose mothers were enrolled in the National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications. Two validated, parent-report developmental and behavioral screening assessments, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3) and the Preschool Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½-5 (CBCL/1½-5), respectively, were delivered electronically to eligible participants. Outcomes of children exposed in utero to SGAs were compared to those unexposed to SGAs in a cohort of mothers with a history of psychiatric illness. Exposure to other psychotropic medications during pregnancy was not an exclusion criterion for either group.Results: From January 2, 2018, to February 2, 2021, 520 children were eligible, and 352 responses were collected (67.7%), including 178 children in the SGA-exposed group (mean age = 2.6 years) and 174 children in the unexposed comparison group (mean age = 2.1 years). No significant differences between groups were detected (OR = 1.24, 95% CI, 0.74-2.09) with respect to developmental outcomes assessed by the ASQ-3. Similarly, for behavioral outcomes, adjusted analysis showed no significant differences in odds of an abnormal "clinical" score on the CBCL/1½-5 composite scales.Conclusions: The current study is the first to examine neurobehavioral outcomes of preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to SGAs. No significant differences in overall development or behavior were detected in the exposed versus unexposed group. These preliminary findings are an important step in delineating neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal SGA exposure.

Barriers to care and treatment experiences among individuals with postpartum psychosis.

PURPOSE: Postpartum psychosis (PP) is a severe psychiatric disorder affecting 1-2 per 1,000 deliveries. Prompt access to healthcare and timely initiation of treatment are crucial to minimizing harm and improving outcomes. This analysis seeks to fill gaps in knowledge surrounding barriers to care and treatment experiences among this population. METHODS: Participants were individuals with histories of PP who enrolled in the Massachusetts General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3). The MGHP3 Healthcare Access Survey, a cross-sectional questionnaire, assesses barriers to care, treatment-seeking behaviors, and experiences with treatment. Descriptive statistics were utilized to describe sample characteristics. RESULTS: 139 participants provided 146 episode-specific survey responses. Lack of available services was cited as the greatest barrier to care for PP. Among those who sought treatment, obstetric providers (34.5%) and emergency medical professionals (29.4%) were the most common initial points of contact. 82.2% of the respondents went to an emergency room or crisis center during their episode(s). Most (61.8%) reported being given insufficient information to manage their PP. Approximately half of participants were hospitalized (55.5%), the majority of whom had no access to their infant during hospitalization (70.4%). Of those breastfeeding or pumping at admission, 31.3% were not given access to a breast pump. 44.4% dealt with delivery-related medical issues during their hospitalization. CONCLUSION: This report is the first of its kind to assess key public health domains among individuals with PP. Findings point to several directions for future research and clinical practice to improve treatment timeliness and quality, potentially improving long-term outcomes related to this serious illness.

The lived experiences of individuals with postpartum psychosis: A qualitative analysis.

Postpartum psychosis (PP) is a severe psychiatric illness that occurs in about 1 to 2 per 1000 people in the perinatal period. To date, qualitative research investigating PP has focused on specific topics, such as treatment experiences or the impact of the illness on patients' lives and families. These studies have included small samples of women with histories of PP, often limited to certain geographical areas or treatment centers. Given the heterogeneity in presentations of PP and access to care, larger and geographically diverse samples are needed to broadly understand this complex illness. Initiated in 2018, the Massachusetts General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) consists of a large, international sample of those who have experienced PP. In addition to the specific aims of MGHP3, which include to better understand the phenomenology and potential genetic underpinnings of PP, this investigation invites participants to qualitatively describe their narratives of postpartum psychosis. This analysis included 130 participants who reported on 133 episodes of PP. Participants' responses to the PP narrative prompt fell under several overarching categories: 1) broad psychosocial experiences surrounding postpartum psychosis, 2) impact on the mother-baby dyad, 3) treatment experiences, and 4) recovery experiences. Our findings shed light on a range of ways in which individuals' lives are impacted by this illness, and point to areas for future research and clinical directions to improve the support and care for individuals with PP and their families.

Optimizing Mental Health for Women: Recognizing and Treating Mood Disorders Throughout the Lifespan.

Mood disorders can come and go during the reproductive stages of a woman's life and beyond and can include premenstrual-related mood disorders, depression and other psychiatric disorders during pregnancy, postpartum mood disorders, and depression during menopause, as well as comorbid psychiatric conditions. Women may have regular contact with health care providers at these various stages in their lives, providing an opportunity for treatment intervention. However, clinicians struggle to effectively identify and manage these disorders, leaving women's mental health issues unaddressed and causing unnecessary suffering, multiple comorbidities, and unwanted outcomes. Context is essential for diagnoses and treatment, and spending time with patients, taking a full history, and taking the time to understand each patient's perspective during these complex periods lead to more accurate diagnoses, ultimately facilitating more effective treatment plans. An array of options is available for treating women's mental health, including antidepressants, oral contraceptives, hormones and recently approved neurosteroids, and nonpharmacological approaches. Clinicians need to be aware of which treatment options are available and evidence-based, guideline-directed solutions to help women manage their mental health. Creating patient-centered, individualized, evidence-based treatment plans is key to optimizing outcomes for women across their lifespan.

Stressors and coping mechanisms among pregnant women with psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Women with psychiatric disorders are vulnerable to relapse in pregnancy, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented an additional stressor. METHODS: Data came from a supplemental study offered to women enrolled in the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women's Mental Health National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications. Registry participants were also invited to complete an email questionnaire relating to their experiences of pregnancy during the pandemic. Prepartum experiences of 230 respondents were analyzed. RESULTS: The most common diagnoses in this group were depression (30%), anxiety disorders (29%), and bipolar affective disorder (17%). Common stressors included changes in employment, greater childcare and/or schooling responsibilities, more conflict in the household, and increased isolation. Participants reported negative impacts and/or coping mechanisms associated with the pandemic, such as sleep problems, reduced physical activity, changes in eating, and greater amounts of screen time. Positive impacts and/or coping mechanisms were also reported, including more quality time with family, more time in nature, and being more appreciative of aspects of life previously taken for granted. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an overall negative psychosocial impact on many pregnant women with preexisting psychiatric disorders. We also observed positive coping mechanisms, which could be drawn on as sources of resilience.

Risk of Major Malformations in Infants After First-Trimester Exposure to Stimulants: Results From the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: The prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adult females is 3% to 4%. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is highly comorbid with other psychiatric disorders such as mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. For reproductive-aged women, the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with stimulant medications may be considered during pregnancy or breastfeeding, although historically, data are lacking to inform these decisions. The aim of this investigation was to determine the risk of major malformations in infants after first-trimester prescription stimulant exposure in a small but rigorously characterized sample. METHODS/PROCEDURES: The Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications systematically ascertains information from pregnant females including demographic information, medical and psychiatric history, use of prescription medications, and other information relevant to fetal outcomes. Participants provide verbal informed consent and are interviewed twice during gestation and again at approximately 3 months postpartum. The primary outcome of interest is the presence of a major malformation identified within 6 months after birth. Redacted cases of major malformations are reviewed by a dysmorphologist blinded to medication exposure. FINDINGS/RESULTS: A total of N = 1988 women were eligible for this analysis, including the following exposures: n = 173 to mixed amphetamine salts; n = 40 to lisdexamfetamine; n = 45 to methylphenidate; n = 3 to dexmethylphenidate; and n = 1755 controls. The odds ratio of a major malformation among infants after first-trimester exposure to any stimulant was 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-1.61) compared with controls. There were no major malformations observed in infants exposed to lisdexamfetamine, methylphenidate, or dexmethylphenidate. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary, this analysis from an ongoing pregnancy registry provides reassurance that these stimulants do not appear to have major teratogenic effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01246765 .

To screen or not to screen: Are we asking the right question? In response to considering de-implementation of universal perinatal depression screening.

This Editorial is a response to the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's recent recommendation "against instrument-based depression screening using a questionnaire with cut-off score to distinguish 'screen positive' and 'screen negative' administered to all individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period (up to 1 year after childbirth)." While we acknowledge the gaps and limitations in research on perinatal mental health screening, we have concerns regarding the potential impact of a recommendation against screening and for "de-implementation" of existing perinatal depression screening practices, particularly if there is not careful attention to the specificity as well as limitations of the recommendation, or if there are not clear alternative systems put in place to support the detection of perinatal depression. In this manuscript, we highlight some of our key concerns and suggest considerations for perinatal mental health practitioners and researchers.

The Challenge of Clinical Research and Suicidality: Participant Feedback on a Safety Protocol.

Objective: Clinical studies of depression have historically excluded participants with suicidal ideation. Research participant safety protocols are critical to allow for the much-needed study of suicide risk. This report summarizes participant feedback about the safety protocol used in a national, remote study of perinatal women with suicidal ideation.Methods: Upon completion of the study, participants who had triggered the suicidality safety protocol during the study were invited to complete a brief survey with questions about their experiences with the protocol. The survey included 4 Likert-scale questions and 1 open text question where participants could provide feedback, suggestions, and comments to the research team. Participant feedback survey data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022, and this research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.Results: Of the 45 participants enrolled in the UPWARD-S study, 16 triggered the safety protocol. All eligible participants (N = 16) completed the survey. Among respondents, most were at least neutral to very comfortable with the call from the study psychiatrist (75% [n = 12]) and reported that the call had a "positive impact" on their well-being (69% [n = 11]). After the call with the study psychiatrist, 50% of participants (n = 8) reported that they increased engagement with treatment for depression, and the other 50% reported no change in treatment. We also report on themes from the qualitative feedback regarding suggestions of how to modify or improve the safety protocol.Conclusions: Learning from the experiences of research participants will provide unique insight into satisfaction with, and impact of, the implemented suicidality safety protocol. Findings from this study could inform the refinement and implementation of safety protocols used in depression studies as well as future research on the impact of such protocols.

Risk of Major Malformations Following First-Trimester Exposure to Olanzapine: Preliminary Data From the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Since its US Food and Drug Administration approval in 1996, olanzapine has been one of the most commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics, making a better understanding of its reproductive safety profile critical. The goal of the current analysis was to determine the risk of major malformations among infants exposed to olanzapine during pregnancy compared with a group of nonexposed infants. METHODS/PROCEDURES: The National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications is a prospective pharmacovigilance program in which pregnant women are enrolled and interviewed during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Labor and delivery and pediatric medical records were screened for evidence of major malformations followed by adjudication by a dysmorphologist blinded to medication exposure. Infants with first-trimester exposure to olanzapine were compared with controls without second-generation antipsychotic exposure. FINDINGS/RESULTS: As of April 18, 2022, 2619 women have enrolled in the study. At the time of data extraction, 49 olanzapine-exposed infants and 1156 infants in the comparison group were eligible for these analyses. There were no major malformations associated with olanzapine exposure in the first trimester. The absolute risk for major malformations in the exposure group was 0.00% (95% confidence interval, 0.00-7.25) for olanzapine compared with 1.64% (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.55) in the control group. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort, no major malformations were associated with olanzapine exposure during the first trimester. Although these data are preliminary and cannot rule out more modest effects, they are nonetheless important, adding to the growing reproductive safety data for olanzapine.

Establishment of the MGH Postpartum Psychosis Project: MGHP3.

OBJECTIVE: Postpartum psychosis (PP) is a severe psychiatric disorder, with incomplete consensus on definition and diagnostic criteria. The Massachusetts General Hospital Postpartum Psychosis Project (MGHP3) was established to better ascertain the phenomenology of PP in a large cohort of diverse women spanning a wide geographical range (primarily in the US), including time of onset, symptom patterns, and associated comorbidities, psychiatric diagnoses pre- and post- the episode of PP, and also to identify genomic and clinical predictors of PP. This report describes the methods of MGHP3 and provides a status update. METHOD: Data are collected from women who experienced PP within 6 months of childbirth and who provided this information within ten years of the study interview. Subject data are gathered during a one-time structured clinical interview conducted by phone, which includes administration of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Psychotic Disorders Studies (Version 7.0.2), the MGHP3© Questionnaire, and other information including lifetime mental health history and use of psychiatric medications both prior to the episode of PP and during the subsequent time period prior to study interview. Subjects also provide a saliva sample to be processed for genomic analyses; a neuroimaging assessment is also conducted for a subset of participants. RESULTS: As of July 1, 2022, 311 subjects from 44 states and 7 countries were enrolled in MGHP3. Recruitment sources include social media, online advertisements, physician referral, community outreach, and partnership with PP advocacy groups. CONCLUSIONS: The rigorous phenotyping, genetic sampling, and neuroimaging studies in this sample of women with histories of PP will contribute to better understanding of this serious illness. Findings from MGHP3 can catalyze ongoing discussions in the field regarding proper nosologic classification of PP as well as relevant treatment implications.

Risk of Poor Neonatal Adaptation Syndrome Among Infants Exposed to Second-Generation Atypical Antipsychotics Compared to Antidepressants: Results From the National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

Objective: While poor neonatal adaptation syndrome (PNAS) has been particularly well described among infants exposed to antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), this is not the case for second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a drug safety warning regarding fetal antipsychotic exposure and risk for PNAS and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). The primary objective of this study was to examine the risk for PNAS among infants exposed to SGAs compared to SSRI/SNRI-exposed infants, leveraging the prospective, longitudinal design of the National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications (NPRPM).Methods: The NPRPM is a prospective pharmacovigilance program in which pregnant women, aged 18-45 years, are enrolled and followed prospectively. Medical records were systematically reviewed and data abstracted using a checklist of PNAS and EPS symptoms specifically outlined in the FDA drug safety warning. The two study groups included infants exposed to an SGA during pregnancy and infants exposed to an SSRI/SNRI during pregnancy. The primary outcome was the presence of at least one or more PNAS symptoms during the first month of life. Other neonatal outcomes following exposure to the medication of interest, including preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, rates of EPS, and whether infants were discharged home with their mothers, are also reported.Results: Of the 2,145 women enrolled in this study as of December 16, 2020, a total of 373 women and their infants (n = 384) were eligible for inclusion (n = 193 SGA-exposed infants and 191 SSRI/SNRI-exposed infants). Among SGA-exposed infants, 32.6% (63/193) experienced at least 1 PNAS sign compared to 34.6% of infants (66/191) in the SSRI/SNRI-exposed group. The majority of infants in each group showed no symptoms of PNAS. No differences were observed between the two groups with respect to rates of preterm birth, NICU admission, prevalence of EPS, and timing of infants being discharged home with their mothers.Conclusions: PNAS symptomatology was comparable among infants exposed prenatally to an SGA or to an SSRI/SNRI. These preliminary findings provide an estimated risk of PNAS among infants exposed to SGAs of roughly 30%. Interestingly, these findings are also consistent with estimates in the literature of PNAS in SSRI/SNRI-exposed infants, suggesting a possible common pathway underlying this phenomenon.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01246765.

Reproductive Safety of Lurasidone and Quetiapine: Update from the National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

Background: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), also called atypical antipsychotics, are common therapies for women with a spectrum of psychiatric disorders. No systematically ascertained human reproductive safety data are available for lurasidone, and prospective data for quetiapine are limited, making decisions regarding use of these medications during pregnancy complicated. Materials and Methods: The National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications is a prospective cohort study designed to collect reproductive safety data relative to SGAs. Pregnant women aged 18-45 years, with psychiatric illness and prenatal psychotropic medication exposure completed three phone interviews during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Cases of presumed malformations are abstracted from medical records for adjudication by a teratologist blinded to medication exposure. Results: Of 2,293 women enrolled at the time of analysis, 134 in the lurasidone group, 264 in the quetiapine group, and 886 controls completed the postpartum interview and were therefore eligible for inclusion. Dropped or lost-to-follow-up participants (13%) and those currently pregnant were excluded. Participants were predominantly White, college-educated, and married (lurasidone = 88.1%, 76.9%, 77.6%; quetiapine = 89.8%, 71.2%, 75.0%; controls = 92.7%, 86.7%, 89.1%). Absolute risks of major malformations were 2.19% (lurasidone), 1.85% (quetiapine), and 1.77% (controls). Odds ratios comparing lurasidone and quetiapine with controls were 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36-4.32) and 1.04 (95% CI = 0.38-2.85), respectively. Conclusions: No specific patterns of malformations were observed in infants exposed to the medications of interest. Lurasidone and quetiapine did not appear to be major teratogens, but further information is needed to refine risk estimates. Food and Drug Administration guidance underscores the importance of pregnancy registries. Clinical trial number: NCT01246765.

Effect of Concomitant Benzodiazepines on the Antidepressant Effects of Ketamine: Findings From the RAPID Intravenous Ketamine Study.

Objective: Ketamine is a novel and rapidly acting treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Benzodiazepines are commonly coprescribed with antidepressants in MDD. This study sought to examine data from a randomized clinical trial that compared a single infusion of intravenous (IV) ketamine to midazolam placebo in treatment-resistant depression (DSM-IV-TR MDD) and to assess whether the use of concomitant oral benzodiazepines differentially affected treatment response to ketamine versus midazolam.Methods: This trial ran from December 2015 to December 2016. Subjects who were taking oral benzodiazepines (n = 44) were compared to those who were not (n = 55). A significant treatment-by-benzodiazepine effect could be interpreted as a possible moderator of differential treatment response to ketamine versus midazolam. Benzodiazepine use was examined as both a binary and a continuous predictor, to assess the impact of dosage.Results: Benzodiazepine users did not differ from non-users on the original study's primary outcome measure, score on the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-6), at baseline, but the former had more severe anxiety. When oral benzodiazepine use was modeled as a binary predictor, benzodiazepine use did not impact differential treatment response. However, when benzodiazepine dosage was considered, there was a significant impact of benzodiazepine use on differential treatment response. Oral benzodiazepines significantly impacted HDRS-6 (P = .018) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S; P = .008) scores at day 1 (24 hours post treatment); effects were nonsignificant for all day 3 outcomes. Among ketamine subjects, higher doses of benzodiazepines were associated with less improvement in depression scores at day 1.Conclusions: Concomitant oral benzodiazepines at higher doses may attenuate the antidepressant effects of IV ketamine at day 1 but not day 3 post-infusion.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01920555.

Risk of major malformations in infants after first-trimester exposure to benzodiazepines: Results from the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal anxiety affects 20% of women, and untreated maternal mental illness can cause deleterious effects for women and their children. Benzodiazepines are commonly used to treat anxiety disorders. The reported risk of congenital malformations after in utero benzodiazepine exposure has been inconsistent. METHODS: The Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications prospectively enrolls pregnant women with psychiatric illness who take one or more psychiatric medications. Participants are interviewed twice during pregnancy and at 12 weeks postpartum. Women taking any benzodiazepine during the first trimester of pregnancy were compared with a group of women taking psychiatric medication(s) other than benzodiazepines during pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 1053 women were eligible for this analysis; N = 151 women who had taken a benzodiazepine during the first trimester, and the comparison group was N = 902 women. There were 5 (3.21%) major malformations in the exposure group and 32 (3.46%) in the comparison group (odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.35-2.41). CONCLUSION: This ongoing pregnancy registry offers reassurance that benzodiazepines do not appear to have major teratogenic effects. The precision of relative risk estimate will improve as the number of participants increases. This and other pregnancy registries will better inform the reproductive safety of benzodiazepines.