Skip to main content
Full access
Letters to the Editor
Published Online: 1 January 2021

Is Valproate Reasonable? Response to Leistikow et al.

To the Editor: We appreciate the comments by Drs. Leistikow, Smith, Payne, and Osborne and agree that, in this day and age, the field of reproductive psychiatry views valproate as a last resort for treatment in women of childbearing age, potentially justifiable when it is the only option for treating severe mental illness. We also agree that in utero valproate exposure has been associated with an increased risk of lower IQ, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and behavioral issues in exposed children and an increased risk of polycystic ovary syndrome, hyperandrogenism, and menstrual irregularities in women.
The case presented in our Clinical Case Conference, “Standard of Care: Reasonable But Not Perfect,” occurred more than 13 years ago, well before the risks of valproate use during pregnancy were understood to the extent that they are today. At the time, valproate was commonly used as a treatment modality, with more than 900,000 prescriptions written annually for women of reproductive age (1). The patient in the case presented was using a reliable form of birth control, placing her risk of having an infant with a neural tube defect at less than one in a thousand. She had severe mental illness, with symptoms of suicidality and thoughts of harming her children and her husband, necessitating a rapid treatment response. Her symptoms had failed to respond to other pharmacologic treatments, and the atypical features of her case suggested a more favorable response to valproate than to lithium (2, 3).
At the time this case occurred, the treating clinicians met the standard of care; nevertheless, at trial, they lost the malpractice case. The purpose of our Clinical Case Conference was to clarify that standard of care requires that the threshold of reasonable care, not optimal care, is provided, and to understand the decisions that the treating clinicians made at the time of the case, as well as to highlight areas where alternative decisions, precautions, and actions could have been considered.
Drs. Leistikow, Smith, Payne, and Osborne accurately point out “a changing standard of care” regarding the use of valproate in reproductive-age women and suggest that the doctors’ decision, in this case, to “treat with valproate instead of other options, such as lithium, may look less reasonable in years to come.” However, clinicians can be responsible only for making treatment decisions and be held to a standard of care based on the information and the body of knowledge available at the time. Therefore, it may be time for current practice guidelines in the treatment of bipolar disorder to address the issue of whether valproate should be used at all, and if so, the specific circumstances and criteria for use, in the treatment of reproductive-age women.

References

1.
Meador KJ, Loring DW: Risks of in utero exposure to valproate. JAMA 2013; 309:1730–1731
2.
Pfennig A, Schlattmann P, Alda M, et al: Influence of atypical features on the quality of prophylactic effectiveness of long-term lithium treatment in bipolar disorders. Bipolar Disord 2010; 12:390–396
3.
Bowden CL: Clinical correlates of therapeutic response in bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord 2001; 67:257–265

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Pages: 100
PubMed: 33384010

History

Accepted: 27 July 2020
Published online: 1 January 2021
Published in print: January 01, 2021

Keywords

  1. Women
  2. Pre/Peri/Postnatal Issues
  3. Education-Psychiatric
  4. Forensic Psychiatry

Authors

Affiliations

Rita Suri, M.D. [email protected]
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles (Suri, Gitlin); Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., Chicago (Socol).
Donna Kanar Socol, J.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles (Suri, Gitlin); Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., Chicago (Socol).
Michael Gitlin, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles (Suri, Gitlin); Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., Chicago (Socol).

Notes

Send correspondence to Dr. Suri ([email protected]).

Funding Information

The authors’ disclosures accompany the original article.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard

There are no citations for this item

View Options

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share