Objective: To review the safety and efficacy of brexanolone for the treatment of moderate to severe postpartum depression (PPD). Data Sources: A literature search through PubMed was conducted (January 2012 to July 2019) using the keyword brexanolone for clinical trials published in the English language. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles were selected if they were related to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of brexanolone or provided novel clinical information regarding this drug entity. Data Synthesis: The findings of the review show that brexanolone administered via IV infusion is both an effective and a fairly safe option for the treatment of PPD. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: There are several antidepressants currently used to treat PPD; however, this is the first with FDA approval for this indication. The rapid onset of action of brexanolone may offer a quicker relief of these symptoms and may possibly lead to improved quality of life for both the mother and the child. Conclusion and Relevance: The recent FDA approval of brexanolone may offer an effective treatment of moderate to severe PPD and has been shown to rapidly decrease depression symptoms.

Summary Aims The 2012 American College of Chest Physician Evidence‐Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy guidelines suggest an international normalized ratio (INR) testing interval of up to 12 weeks, rather than every 4 weeks, for patients with consistently stable INRs while taking vitamin K antagonists. We aimed to examine the feasibility of extended‐interval follow‐up in a real‐world setting. Methods Patients receiving stable warfarin therapy for ≥12 weeks at baseline began extended‐interval follow‐up with visits occurring at 6 weeks, 14 weeks, and every 12 weeks thereafter to a maximum of 68 weeks or until they were no longer suitable for extended‐interval follow‐up. A single INR excursion >0.3 from goal was permitted if a reversible precipitating factor was identified and the INR was expected to return to goal without dose adjustment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients completing all study follow‐up visits. Results Of 48 patients enrolled, 47 had evaluable data. The most common indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation/flutter (53.2%). At baseline, mean prior warfarin treatment duration was 6.7 ± 6 years and median number of weeks on a stable regimen was 24 weeks (IQR, 19–37.5). Eleven patients (23%) completed all study follow‐up visits, whereas 17 (36%) did not maintain a stable INR past the 14‐week follow‐up. Conclusion A large proportion of patients with previously stable (≥3 months) INRs were not able to maintain stable INRs during extended‐interval follow‐up. More research is needed to identify patient characteristics predictive of success with extended‐interval follow‐up prior to broad implementation.

Extended-interval monitoring of warfarin has been proposed to reduce follow-up burden and improve patient satisfaction. We aimed to make an initial assessment of anticoagulation satisfaction before and after an extended-interval warfarin monitoring intervention. We conducted a translational prospective single-arm pilot study of extended-interval warfarin monitoring in five pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics. Patients meeting CHEST guideline criteria for extended-interval warfarin monitoring began progressive extended-interval follow-up (6, 8, and 12 weeks thereafter). The Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS) was administered at baseline and at end-of-study or study removal (in patients no longer appropriate for extended interval follow-up). Forty-six patients had evaluable pre- and post-intervention DASS survey data. Mean age of patients was 66.5 years, 74 % were non-Hispanic whites, and 48 % were men. Patients completed a mean ± SD of 34 ± 22 weeks of follow-up. Mean ± SD total DASS score at baseline was 45.2 ± 14.2 versus 49.1 ± 14.9 at end-of-study (mean change, +3.9 [95 % CI -0.6-8.4; p = 0.09]), indicating no benefit-and trending toward decrement-to anticoagulation satisfaction. Change in anticoagulation satisfaction varied substantially following extended-interval monitoring, with no evidence of improved satisfaction. Plausible reasons for patients not preferring extended-interval monitoring include increased anxiety and disengagement from self-management activities, both potentially related to less frequent feedback and reassurance during extended interval-monitoring. Additional research is needed to identify who is likely to benefit most from extended-interval monitoring. Anticoagulation satisfaction should be considered with clinical factors and shared-decision making when implementing extended-interval warfarin monitoring.