Article

CASE TBI as a result of self-harm

Mr. N, age 46, presents to the emergency department (ED) after his neighbors report hearing “loud banging sounds” coming from his apartment for approximately 3 days. Emergency medical services found him repeatedly beating his head into a table. Upon admission to the ED, his injuries include a right temporal lobe contusion, right temporal subdural hematoma, facial fractures, bilateral foot fractures, and prevertebral swelling at the C4 vertebrate.

Mr. N is admitted to the surgical intensive care unit for hourly neurology checks. Neurosurgery recommends nonoperative management and for Mr. N to wear a cervical collar for 1 month. He is sedated after he experiences auditory hallucinations and becomes agitated toward the staff, which is later determined to be delirium. The Psychiatry team recommends inpatient psychiatric hospitalization because Mr. N’s self-harming behavior resulted in severe and dangerous injuries.

HISTORY Alcohol use disorder, insomnia, anxiety, and depression

As Mr. N becomes alert and oriented, he reports a history of alcohol use disorder (AUD), insomnia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder (MDD), but no personal or family history of bipolar disorder (BD). He says he has had insomnia and anxiety since age 18, for which he received diazepam and zolpidem for 16 years. He stopped diazepam soon after a recent change in psychiatrists and subsequently had difficulty sleeping. Mr. N started taking mirtazapine, but found minimal relief and stopped it several months ago.

[polldaddy:12704471]

The authors’ observations

The term “agitated depression” refers to a mixed state that includes symptoms of depression plus marked anxiety, restlessness, and delusions. Agitated depression is not a distinct diagnosis in DSM-5, but is classified as depression with mixed features.¹ To meet the criteria for the mixed features specifier, a patient who meets the criteria for a major depressive episode needs to have ≥3 of the following manic/hypomanic symptoms¹:

• Elevated, expansive mood
• Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
• More talkative than usual
• Flight of ideas or racing thoughts
• Increase in energy or goal-directed activity
• Increased involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences
• Decreased need for sleep.

The diagnosis for individuals who meet the full criteria for mania or hypomania would be BD I or BD II.¹ Additionally, mixed features associated with a major depressive episode are a significant risk factor for BD.¹

EVALUATION Agitation and hallucinations

Mr. N recalls multiple falls at home in the weeks prior to hospitalization, but says he does not remember repeatedly hitting his head against a table. He reports sleeping for approximately 2 hours per night since his father’s death 2 months ago, an acute stressor that likely precipitated this depressive episode. Mr. N says he had been experiencing visual hallucinations of his father and a younger version of himself for weeks before presenting to the ED. It is not clear if Mr. N does not recall beating his head on the table due to his traumatic brain injury (TBI) or because it occurred during an acute manic or psychotic episode with hallucinations.

The treatment team assigns Mr. N a working diagnosis of agitated depression with a risk for BD, mixed episode. He meets the criteria for agitated depression (major depressive episode, motor agitation, and psychic agitation), but also has many features of BD; a manic episode may have led to hospitalization. The treating clinicians continue to monitor the progression of Mr. N’s symptoms to clarify his diagnoses. During the course of his hospitalization, Mr. N’s psychiatric diagnoses include delirium (resolved), alcohol withdrawal, catatonia, substance-induced mood disorder, and agitated depression. Mixed episode BD is ruled out.

Continue to: The authors' observations

There is significant symptomatic overlap between agitated depression and BD. It can be difficult to differentiate the diagnoses, as psychomotor agitation can be seen in MDD and agitated depression can be seen in BD. Serra et al² investigated the prevalence of agitated depression in patients with BD and found that agitation accompanied bipolar depression in at least one-third of cases and was associated with concurrent somatic depressive symptoms, which are common features of mixed manic states. Psychomotor agitation was also associated with lifetime experience of mixed mania, comorbid panic disorder, and increased suicidal behavior.²

Though antidepressants are considered a first-line treatment for depression, they should not be used to treat agitated depression because they may increase insomnia, agitation, and suicide risk, and may trigger the onset of psychotic symptoms. In a similar vein, antidepressant monotherapy is contraindicated in BD because it may induce mania or hypomania states.²

TREATMENT Neuroprotective psychotropics

Due to Mr. N’s medical complexity (particularly cervical collar and physical therapy needs), he is not transferred to a psychiatric facility. Instead, the consultation-liaison psychiatry team follows him and provides psychiatric care in the hospital.

Due to concerns for continued self-harm, Mr. N is observed by continuous video monitoring. After initial stabilization, the care team starts valproic acid 250 mg twice daily and titrates it to 500 mg/d in the morning and 1,000 mg/d in the evening for mood stabilization, gabapentin 300 mg 3 times daily, melatonin 3 mg/d at bedtime for insomnia, and lorazepam 1 mg/d at bedtime to rule out catatonia and 1 mg/d as needed for agitation. After starting valproic acid, the care team routinely checks Mr. N’s ammonia levels throughout his hospitalization.

[polldaddy:12704473]

The authors’ observations

Treatment of agitated depression both in isolation and in the context of BD presents a clinical challenge because antidepressants are contraindicated for both agitated depression and BD. In the context of TBI, treatment of agitated depression becomes more complicated because neuroprotection is the priority. Neuroprotection refers to a medication’s ability to prevent neuronal cell death or further injury or damage through neurochemical modulation.

Continue to: To treat agitation associated with MDD...

To treat agitation associated with MDD, second-generation antipsychotics and valproic acid have shown significant neuroprotective effects. The proposed mechanisms for neuroprotection include not only antioxidant effects but 5HT1A agonist properties, with the latter thought to protect against excitotoxic injury that may exacerbate agitation due to brain trauma.³

There is no consensus on which antipsychotics are most efficacious for treating agitation in the setting of an acute TBI. Williamson et al⁴ reviewed various medications that may treat agitation in the setting of acute TBI with fewer adverse effects.

Though haloperidol is often prescribed to treat agitation in patients with TBI, animal studies have shown it is inferior to second-generation antipsychotics in protecting against excitotoxic/oxidative injury, and haloperidol has been associated with neuronal loss. Haloperidol has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes for patients with aggression after TBI, including prolonged amnesia, which is thought to be linked to haloperidol’s strong and selective dopamine-2 receptor antagonism and the mesocortical and nigrostriatal pathways involved.⁴ 

Carbamazepine, phenytoin, and methyl­phenidate cause oxidative stress and/or apoptosis, and therefore offer no neuroprotection. Data on gabapentin are mixed; a few studies suggest it may block synapse formation or decrease quantities of antioxidant enzymes in the brain, though it’s known to protect against glutamate-induced neuronal injury.³

Additional research is needed to assess which second-generation antipsychotics offer the most neuroprotection. However, based on existing literature, olanzapine and aripiprazole may offer the most benefit because they have the greatest antioxidant—and thus, neuroprotective—activity. Cognitive enhancers such as memantine and donepezil exhibit neuroprotection, particularly in Alzheimer disease. Anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam, lacosamide, and lamotrigine offer neuroprotection and may be considered for seizure prevention.³ The Table^3-6 lists psychotropic medications used to treat TBI.

Continue to: Valproic acid stands out among...

Valproic acid stands out among anticonvulsants because its superior antioxidant effects, in combination with its antiepileptic effect in patients with TBI, offer more neuro­protection than other medications.⁵ It is important to regularly monitor ammonia levels in patients receiving valproic acid because elevated levels can cause hyperammonemic encephalopathy.

A 2005 study by DeBattista et al⁵ investigated the impact of valproic acid on agitation in 12 adults with MDD who were being treated with antidepressants. Participants were given a low dose of valproic acid for 4 weeks and their agitation, anxiety, and depressed mood were independently assessed by separate rating scales. There was a modest decrease in scores for mood symptoms but a particularly sharp decrease in agitation scores.⁵

Valproic acid has been shown to be a potentially safe and efficacious treatment for alcohol withdrawal. A clinical trial examining patients with moderate alcohol withdrawal found a faster and more consistent resolution of symptoms in patients given valproic acid detoxification compared to a control group that received the standard benzodiazepine detoxification.⁶ Additionally, patients who continued maintenance valproic acid following detoxification were completely abstinent at 6-week follow-up compared to patients who did not receive this maintenance therapy.⁶ 

Valproic acid was a particularly optimal medication choice for Mr. N due to its neuroprotective properties in the context of TBI, its ability to treat delirium,⁷ its lack of abuse potential compared with benzodiazepines, and its potential efficacy for managing alcohol withdrawal and AUD.

OUTCOME Improvement and discharge

Mr. N is medically cleared for discharge. Although the psychiatry team initially was concerned about his willingness to attend follow-up appointments and adhere to proper cervical collar use, Mr. N becomes more cooperative with psychiatric care as his stay continues, and he is psychiatrically cleared for discharge 1 month after admission. Discharge plans include attending an intensive outpatient program, continuing the inpatient psychiatric medication regimen, participating in regular outpatient psychiatric follow-up, as well as following up with orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, podiatry, and ear, nose, and throat for medical conditions.

Bottom Line

Agitated depression is a mixed state that includes features of depression and manic/hypomanic symptoms. Diagnosis and treatment can be challenging because symptoms of agitated depression overlap with bipolar disorder and antidepressants are contraindicated. In a patient with a traumatic brain injury, pharmacotherapy that provides neuroprotection is a priority.

Related Resources

• Ramaswamy S, Driscoll D, Rodriguez A, et al. Nutraceuticals for traumatic brain injury: should you recommend their use? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(7):34-38,40,41-45.
• Sampogna G, Del Vecchio V, Giallonardo V, et al. Diagnosis, clinical features, and therapeutic implications of agitated depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2020;43(1):47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2019.10.011

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Buspirone • BuSpar
Carbamazepine • Tegretol
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dexmedetomidine • Igalmi
Diazepam • Valium
Donepezil • Aricept
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lacosamide • Vimpat
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Paliperidone • Invega
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Trazodone • Oleptro
Valproic acid • Depakene
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien
Zonisamide • Zonegran

CASE TBI as a result of self-harm

Mr. N, age 46, presents to the emergency department (ED) after his neighbors report hearing “loud banging sounds” coming from his apartment for approximately 3 days. Emergency medical services found him repeatedly beating his head into a table. Upon admission to the ED, his injuries include a right temporal lobe contusion, right temporal subdural hematoma, facial fractures, bilateral foot fractures, and prevertebral swelling at the C4 vertebrate.

Mr. N is admitted to the surgical intensive care unit for hourly neurology checks. Neurosurgery recommends nonoperative management and for Mr. N to wear a cervical collar for 1 month. He is sedated after he experiences auditory hallucinations and becomes agitated toward the staff, which is later determined to be delirium. The Psychiatry team recommends inpatient psychiatric hospitalization because Mr. N’s self-harming behavior resulted in severe and dangerous injuries.

HISTORY Alcohol use disorder, insomnia, anxiety, and depression

As Mr. N becomes alert and oriented, he reports a history of alcohol use disorder (AUD), insomnia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder (MDD), but no personal or family history of bipolar disorder (BD). He says he has had insomnia and anxiety since age 18, for which he received diazepam and zolpidem for 16 years. He stopped diazepam soon after a recent change in psychiatrists and subsequently had difficulty sleeping. Mr. N started taking mirtazapine, but found minimal relief and stopped it several months ago.

[polldaddy:12704471]

The authors’ observations

The term “agitated depression” refers to a mixed state that includes symptoms of depression plus marked anxiety, restlessness, and delusions. Agitated depression is not a distinct diagnosis in DSM-5, but is classified as depression with mixed features.¹ To meet the criteria for the mixed features specifier, a patient who meets the criteria for a major depressive episode needs to have ≥3 of the following manic/hypomanic symptoms¹:

• Elevated, expansive mood
• Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
• More talkative than usual
• Flight of ideas or racing thoughts
• Increase in energy or goal-directed activity
• Increased involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences
• Decreased need for sleep.

The diagnosis for individuals who meet the full criteria for mania or hypomania would be BD I or BD II.¹ Additionally, mixed features associated with a major depressive episode are a significant risk factor for BD.¹

EVALUATION Agitation and hallucinations

Mr. N recalls multiple falls at home in the weeks prior to hospitalization, but says he does not remember repeatedly hitting his head against a table. He reports sleeping for approximately 2 hours per night since his father’s death 2 months ago, an acute stressor that likely precipitated this depressive episode. Mr. N says he had been experiencing visual hallucinations of his father and a younger version of himself for weeks before presenting to the ED. It is not clear if Mr. N does not recall beating his head on the table due to his traumatic brain injury (TBI) or because it occurred during an acute manic or psychotic episode with hallucinations.

The treatment team assigns Mr. N a working diagnosis of agitated depression with a risk for BD, mixed episode. He meets the criteria for agitated depression (major depressive episode, motor agitation, and psychic agitation), but also has many features of BD; a manic episode may have led to hospitalization. The treating clinicians continue to monitor the progression of Mr. N’s symptoms to clarify his diagnoses. During the course of his hospitalization, Mr. N’s psychiatric diagnoses include delirium (resolved), alcohol withdrawal, catatonia, substance-induced mood disorder, and agitated depression. Mixed episode BD is ruled out.

Continue to: The authors' observations

There is significant symptomatic overlap between agitated depression and BD. It can be difficult to differentiate the diagnoses, as psychomotor agitation can be seen in MDD and agitated depression can be seen in BD. Serra et al² investigated the prevalence of agitated depression in patients with BD and found that agitation accompanied bipolar depression in at least one-third of cases and was associated with concurrent somatic depressive symptoms, which are common features of mixed manic states. Psychomotor agitation was also associated with lifetime experience of mixed mania, comorbid panic disorder, and increased suicidal behavior.²

Though antidepressants are considered a first-line treatment for depression, they should not be used to treat agitated depression because they may increase insomnia, agitation, and suicide risk, and may trigger the onset of psychotic symptoms. In a similar vein, antidepressant monotherapy is contraindicated in BD because it may induce mania or hypomania states.²

TREATMENT Neuroprotective psychotropics

Due to Mr. N’s medical complexity (particularly cervical collar and physical therapy needs), he is not transferred to a psychiatric facility. Instead, the consultation-liaison psychiatry team follows him and provides psychiatric care in the hospital.

Due to concerns for continued self-harm, Mr. N is observed by continuous video monitoring. After initial stabilization, the care team starts valproic acid 250 mg twice daily and titrates it to 500 mg/d in the morning and 1,000 mg/d in the evening for mood stabilization, gabapentin 300 mg 3 times daily, melatonin 3 mg/d at bedtime for insomnia, and lorazepam 1 mg/d at bedtime to rule out catatonia and 1 mg/d as needed for agitation. After starting valproic acid, the care team routinely checks Mr. N’s ammonia levels throughout his hospitalization.

[polldaddy:12704473]

The authors’ observations

Treatment of agitated depression both in isolation and in the context of BD presents a clinical challenge because antidepressants are contraindicated for both agitated depression and BD. In the context of TBI, treatment of agitated depression becomes more complicated because neuroprotection is the priority. Neuroprotection refers to a medication’s ability to prevent neuronal cell death or further injury or damage through neurochemical modulation.

Continue to: To treat agitation associated with MDD...

To treat agitation associated with MDD, second-generation antipsychotics and valproic acid have shown significant neuroprotective effects. The proposed mechanisms for neuroprotection include not only antioxidant effects but 5HT1A agonist properties, with the latter thought to protect against excitotoxic injury that may exacerbate agitation due to brain trauma.³

There is no consensus on which antipsychotics are most efficacious for treating agitation in the setting of an acute TBI. Williamson et al⁴ reviewed various medications that may treat agitation in the setting of acute TBI with fewer adverse effects.

Though haloperidol is often prescribed to treat agitation in patients with TBI, animal studies have shown it is inferior to second-generation antipsychotics in protecting against excitotoxic/oxidative injury, and haloperidol has been associated with neuronal loss. Haloperidol has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes for patients with aggression after TBI, including prolonged amnesia, which is thought to be linked to haloperidol’s strong and selective dopamine-2 receptor antagonism and the mesocortical and nigrostriatal pathways involved.⁴ 

Carbamazepine, phenytoin, and methyl­phenidate cause oxidative stress and/or apoptosis, and therefore offer no neuroprotection. Data on gabapentin are mixed; a few studies suggest it may block synapse formation or decrease quantities of antioxidant enzymes in the brain, though it’s known to protect against glutamate-induced neuronal injury.³

Additional research is needed to assess which second-generation antipsychotics offer the most neuroprotection. However, based on existing literature, olanzapine and aripiprazole may offer the most benefit because they have the greatest antioxidant—and thus, neuroprotective—activity. Cognitive enhancers such as memantine and donepezil exhibit neuroprotection, particularly in Alzheimer disease. Anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam, lacosamide, and lamotrigine offer neuroprotection and may be considered for seizure prevention.³ The Table^3-6 lists psychotropic medications used to treat TBI.

Continue to: Valproic acid stands out among...

Valproic acid stands out among anticonvulsants because its superior antioxidant effects, in combination with its antiepileptic effect in patients with TBI, offer more neuro­protection than other medications.⁵ It is important to regularly monitor ammonia levels in patients receiving valproic acid because elevated levels can cause hyperammonemic encephalopathy.

A 2005 study by DeBattista et al⁵ investigated the impact of valproic acid on agitation in 12 adults with MDD who were being treated with antidepressants. Participants were given a low dose of valproic acid for 4 weeks and their agitation, anxiety, and depressed mood were independently assessed by separate rating scales. There was a modest decrease in scores for mood symptoms but a particularly sharp decrease in agitation scores.⁵

Valproic acid has been shown to be a potentially safe and efficacious treatment for alcohol withdrawal. A clinical trial examining patients with moderate alcohol withdrawal found a faster and more consistent resolution of symptoms in patients given valproic acid detoxification compared to a control group that received the standard benzodiazepine detoxification.⁶ Additionally, patients who continued maintenance valproic acid following detoxification were completely abstinent at 6-week follow-up compared to patients who did not receive this maintenance therapy.⁶ 

Valproic acid was a particularly optimal medication choice for Mr. N due to its neuroprotective properties in the context of TBI, its ability to treat delirium,⁷ its lack of abuse potential compared with benzodiazepines, and its potential efficacy for managing alcohol withdrawal and AUD.

OUTCOME Improvement and discharge

Mr. N is medically cleared for discharge. Although the psychiatry team initially was concerned about his willingness to attend follow-up appointments and adhere to proper cervical collar use, Mr. N becomes more cooperative with psychiatric care as his stay continues, and he is psychiatrically cleared for discharge 1 month after admission. Discharge plans include attending an intensive outpatient program, continuing the inpatient psychiatric medication regimen, participating in regular outpatient psychiatric follow-up, as well as following up with orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, podiatry, and ear, nose, and throat for medical conditions.

Bottom Line

Agitated depression is a mixed state that includes features of depression and manic/hypomanic symptoms. Diagnosis and treatment can be challenging because symptoms of agitated depression overlap with bipolar disorder and antidepressants are contraindicated. In a patient with a traumatic brain injury, pharmacotherapy that provides neuroprotection is a priority.

Related Resources

• Ramaswamy S, Driscoll D, Rodriguez A, et al. Nutraceuticals for traumatic brain injury: should you recommend their use? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(7):34-38,40,41-45.
• Sampogna G, Del Vecchio V, Giallonardo V, et al. Diagnosis, clinical features, and therapeutic implications of agitated depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2020;43(1):47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2019.10.011

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Buspirone • BuSpar
Carbamazepine • Tegretol
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dexmedetomidine • Igalmi
Diazepam • Valium
Donepezil • Aricept
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lacosamide • Vimpat
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Paliperidone • Invega
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Trazodone • Oleptro
Valproic acid • Depakene
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien
Zonisamide • Zonegran

CASE TBI as a result of self-harm

Mr. N, age 46, presents to the emergency department (ED) after his neighbors report hearing “loud banging sounds” coming from his apartment for approximately 3 days. Emergency medical services found him repeatedly beating his head into a table. Upon admission to the ED, his injuries include a right temporal lobe contusion, right temporal subdural hematoma, facial fractures, bilateral foot fractures, and prevertebral swelling at the C4 vertebrate.

Mr. N is admitted to the surgical intensive care unit for hourly neurology checks. Neurosurgery recommends nonoperative management and for Mr. N to wear a cervical collar for 1 month. He is sedated after he experiences auditory hallucinations and becomes agitated toward the staff, which is later determined to be delirium. The Psychiatry team recommends inpatient psychiatric hospitalization because Mr. N’s self-harming behavior resulted in severe and dangerous injuries.

HISTORY Alcohol use disorder, insomnia, anxiety, and depression

As Mr. N becomes alert and oriented, he reports a history of alcohol use disorder (AUD), insomnia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder (MDD), but no personal or family history of bipolar disorder (BD). He says he has had insomnia and anxiety since age 18, for which he received diazepam and zolpidem for 16 years. He stopped diazepam soon after a recent change in psychiatrists and subsequently had difficulty sleeping. Mr. N started taking mirtazapine, but found minimal relief and stopped it several months ago.

[polldaddy:12704471]

The authors’ observations

The term “agitated depression” refers to a mixed state that includes symptoms of depression plus marked anxiety, restlessness, and delusions. Agitated depression is not a distinct diagnosis in DSM-5, but is classified as depression with mixed features.¹ To meet the criteria for the mixed features specifier, a patient who meets the criteria for a major depressive episode needs to have ≥3 of the following manic/hypomanic symptoms¹:

• Elevated, expansive mood
• Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
• More talkative than usual
• Flight of ideas or racing thoughts
• Increase in energy or goal-directed activity
• Increased involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences
• Decreased need for sleep.

The diagnosis for individuals who meet the full criteria for mania or hypomania would be BD I or BD II.¹ Additionally, mixed features associated with a major depressive episode are a significant risk factor for BD.¹

EVALUATION Agitation and hallucinations

Mr. N recalls multiple falls at home in the weeks prior to hospitalization, but says he does not remember repeatedly hitting his head against a table. He reports sleeping for approximately 2 hours per night since his father’s death 2 months ago, an acute stressor that likely precipitated this depressive episode. Mr. N says he had been experiencing visual hallucinations of his father and a younger version of himself for weeks before presenting to the ED. It is not clear if Mr. N does not recall beating his head on the table due to his traumatic brain injury (TBI) or because it occurred during an acute manic or psychotic episode with hallucinations.

The treatment team assigns Mr. N a working diagnosis of agitated depression with a risk for BD, mixed episode. He meets the criteria for agitated depression (major depressive episode, motor agitation, and psychic agitation), but also has many features of BD; a manic episode may have led to hospitalization. The treating clinicians continue to monitor the progression of Mr. N’s symptoms to clarify his diagnoses. During the course of his hospitalization, Mr. N’s psychiatric diagnoses include delirium (resolved), alcohol withdrawal, catatonia, substance-induced mood disorder, and agitated depression. Mixed episode BD is ruled out.

Continue to: The authors' observations

There is significant symptomatic overlap between agitated depression and BD. It can be difficult to differentiate the diagnoses, as psychomotor agitation can be seen in MDD and agitated depression can be seen in BD. Serra et al² investigated the prevalence of agitated depression in patients with BD and found that agitation accompanied bipolar depression in at least one-third of cases and was associated with concurrent somatic depressive symptoms, which are common features of mixed manic states. Psychomotor agitation was also associated with lifetime experience of mixed mania, comorbid panic disorder, and increased suicidal behavior.²

Though antidepressants are considered a first-line treatment for depression, they should not be used to treat agitated depression because they may increase insomnia, agitation, and suicide risk, and may trigger the onset of psychotic symptoms. In a similar vein, antidepressant monotherapy is contraindicated in BD because it may induce mania or hypomania states.²

TREATMENT Neuroprotective psychotropics

Due to Mr. N’s medical complexity (particularly cervical collar and physical therapy needs), he is not transferred to a psychiatric facility. Instead, the consultation-liaison psychiatry team follows him and provides psychiatric care in the hospital.

Due to concerns for continued self-harm, Mr. N is observed by continuous video monitoring. After initial stabilization, the care team starts valproic acid 250 mg twice daily and titrates it to 500 mg/d in the morning and 1,000 mg/d in the evening for mood stabilization, gabapentin 300 mg 3 times daily, melatonin 3 mg/d at bedtime for insomnia, and lorazepam 1 mg/d at bedtime to rule out catatonia and 1 mg/d as needed for agitation. After starting valproic acid, the care team routinely checks Mr. N’s ammonia levels throughout his hospitalization.

[polldaddy:12704473]

The authors’ observations

Treatment of agitated depression both in isolation and in the context of BD presents a clinical challenge because antidepressants are contraindicated for both agitated depression and BD. In the context of TBI, treatment of agitated depression becomes more complicated because neuroprotection is the priority. Neuroprotection refers to a medication’s ability to prevent neuronal cell death or further injury or damage through neurochemical modulation.

Continue to: To treat agitation associated with MDD...

To treat agitation associated with MDD, second-generation antipsychotics and valproic acid have shown significant neuroprotective effects. The proposed mechanisms for neuroprotection include not only antioxidant effects but 5HT1A agonist properties, with the latter thought to protect against excitotoxic injury that may exacerbate agitation due to brain trauma.³

There is no consensus on which antipsychotics are most efficacious for treating agitation in the setting of an acute TBI. Williamson et al⁴ reviewed various medications that may treat agitation in the setting of acute TBI with fewer adverse effects.

Though haloperidol is often prescribed to treat agitation in patients with TBI, animal studies have shown it is inferior to second-generation antipsychotics in protecting against excitotoxic/oxidative injury, and haloperidol has been associated with neuronal loss. Haloperidol has been linked to adverse clinical outcomes for patients with aggression after TBI, including prolonged amnesia, which is thought to be linked to haloperidol’s strong and selective dopamine-2 receptor antagonism and the mesocortical and nigrostriatal pathways involved.⁴ 

Carbamazepine, phenytoin, and methyl­phenidate cause oxidative stress and/or apoptosis, and therefore offer no neuroprotection. Data on gabapentin are mixed; a few studies suggest it may block synapse formation or decrease quantities of antioxidant enzymes in the brain, though it’s known to protect against glutamate-induced neuronal injury.³

Additional research is needed to assess which second-generation antipsychotics offer the most neuroprotection. However, based on existing literature, olanzapine and aripiprazole may offer the most benefit because they have the greatest antioxidant—and thus, neuroprotective—activity. Cognitive enhancers such as memantine and donepezil exhibit neuroprotection, particularly in Alzheimer disease. Anticonvulsants such as levetiracetam, lacosamide, and lamotrigine offer neuroprotection and may be considered for seizure prevention.³ The Table^3-6 lists psychotropic medications used to treat TBI.

Continue to: Valproic acid stands out among...

Valproic acid stands out among anticonvulsants because its superior antioxidant effects, in combination with its antiepileptic effect in patients with TBI, offer more neuro­protection than other medications.⁵ It is important to regularly monitor ammonia levels in patients receiving valproic acid because elevated levels can cause hyperammonemic encephalopathy.

A 2005 study by DeBattista et al⁵ investigated the impact of valproic acid on agitation in 12 adults with MDD who were being treated with antidepressants. Participants were given a low dose of valproic acid for 4 weeks and their agitation, anxiety, and depressed mood were independently assessed by separate rating scales. There was a modest decrease in scores for mood symptoms but a particularly sharp decrease in agitation scores.⁵

Valproic acid has been shown to be a potentially safe and efficacious treatment for alcohol withdrawal. A clinical trial examining patients with moderate alcohol withdrawal found a faster and more consistent resolution of symptoms in patients given valproic acid detoxification compared to a control group that received the standard benzodiazepine detoxification.⁶ Additionally, patients who continued maintenance valproic acid following detoxification were completely abstinent at 6-week follow-up compared to patients who did not receive this maintenance therapy.⁶ 

Valproic acid was a particularly optimal medication choice for Mr. N due to its neuroprotective properties in the context of TBI, its ability to treat delirium,⁷ its lack of abuse potential compared with benzodiazepines, and its potential efficacy for managing alcohol withdrawal and AUD.

OUTCOME Improvement and discharge

Mr. N is medically cleared for discharge. Although the psychiatry team initially was concerned about his willingness to attend follow-up appointments and adhere to proper cervical collar use, Mr. N becomes more cooperative with psychiatric care as his stay continues, and he is psychiatrically cleared for discharge 1 month after admission. Discharge plans include attending an intensive outpatient program, continuing the inpatient psychiatric medication regimen, participating in regular outpatient psychiatric follow-up, as well as following up with orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, podiatry, and ear, nose, and throat for medical conditions.

Bottom Line

Agitated depression is a mixed state that includes features of depression and manic/hypomanic symptoms. Diagnosis and treatment can be challenging because symptoms of agitated depression overlap with bipolar disorder and antidepressants are contraindicated. In a patient with a traumatic brain injury, pharmacotherapy that provides neuroprotection is a priority.

Related Resources

• Ramaswamy S, Driscoll D, Rodriguez A, et al. Nutraceuticals for traumatic brain injury: should you recommend their use? Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(7):34-38,40,41-45.
• Sampogna G, Del Vecchio V, Giallonardo V, et al. Diagnosis, clinical features, and therapeutic implications of agitated depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2020;43(1):47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.psc.2019.10.011

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Asenapine • Saphris
Brexpiprazole • Rexulti
Buspirone • BuSpar
Carbamazepine • Tegretol
Cariprazine • Vraylar
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dexmedetomidine • Igalmi
Diazepam • Valium
Donepezil • Aricept
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Haloperidol • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lacosamide • Vimpat
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Paliperidone • Invega
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Trazodone • Oleptro
Valproic acid • Depakene
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien
Zonisamide • Zonegran

Psychiatric clinicians may unilaterally decide to end a treatment relationship with a patient when the relationship is no longer therapeutic, such as when the patient does not adhere to treatment, repeatedly misses appointments, exhibits abusive behaviors, or fails to pay for treatment.¹ Claims of abandonment can arise if ending the treatment relationship is not executed properly. Abandonment is the termination of a treatment relationship with a patient who remains in need of treatment, has no suitable substitute treatment, and subsequently experiences damages as a result of the termination.² When a patient terminates a treatment relationship, there are no legal bases for abandonment claims.³ In this article, I provide a few practical tips for properly terminating the doctor-patient relationship to limit the likelihood of claims of abandonment.

Know your jurisdiction’s requirements for terminating the relationship. Each state has its own legal definition of a doctor-patient relationship as well as requirements for ending it. Abandonment claims are unfounded in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.³ Contact the appropriate licensing board to determine what your state’s regulatory requirements are. If necessary, consult with your attorney or a risk management professional for guidance.⁴

Communicate clearly. Communicate with your patient about the end of the treatment relationship in a clear and consistent manner, both verbally and in writing, because a termination should be viewed as a formal, documented event.³ Except in situations requiring immediate termination, psychiatric clinicians should inform the patient about the reason(s) for termination,⁴ the need for continued treatment,³ and the type of recommended treatment.³ This discussion should be summarized in a termination letter given to the patient that includes termination language, referral sources, the end date of treatment, and a request for authorization to release a copy of the patient’s medical records to their new clinician.^3,4

Give adequate time, set boundaries, and document. Thirty days is generally considered adequate time for a patient to find a new clinician,⁵ unless the patient lives in an area where there is a shortage of psychiatric clinicians, in which case a longer time period would be appropriate.³ Ensure your patient has a sufficient supply of medication(s) until they establish care with a new clinician.⁴ Offer to provide emergency care for a reasonable period of time during the termination process unless a safety concern requires immediate termination.⁴ Avoid situations in which the patient attempts to re-enter your care. Document the reason for the termination in your progress notes and keep a copy of the termination letter in the patient’s medical record.⁴

Psychiatric clinicians may unilaterally decide to end a treatment relationship with a patient when the relationship is no longer therapeutic, such as when the patient does not adhere to treatment, repeatedly misses appointments, exhibits abusive behaviors, or fails to pay for treatment.¹ Claims of abandonment can arise if ending the treatment relationship is not executed properly. Abandonment is the termination of a treatment relationship with a patient who remains in need of treatment, has no suitable substitute treatment, and subsequently experiences damages as a result of the termination.² When a patient terminates a treatment relationship, there are no legal bases for abandonment claims.³ In this article, I provide a few practical tips for properly terminating the doctor-patient relationship to limit the likelihood of claims of abandonment.

Know your jurisdiction’s requirements for terminating the relationship. Each state has its own legal definition of a doctor-patient relationship as well as requirements for ending it. Abandonment claims are unfounded in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.³ Contact the appropriate licensing board to determine what your state’s regulatory requirements are. If necessary, consult with your attorney or a risk management professional for guidance.⁴

Communicate clearly. Communicate with your patient about the end of the treatment relationship in a clear and consistent manner, both verbally and in writing, because a termination should be viewed as a formal, documented event.³ Except in situations requiring immediate termination, psychiatric clinicians should inform the patient about the reason(s) for termination,⁴ the need for continued treatment,³ and the type of recommended treatment.³ This discussion should be summarized in a termination letter given to the patient that includes termination language, referral sources, the end date of treatment, and a request for authorization to release a copy of the patient’s medical records to their new clinician.^3,4

Give adequate time, set boundaries, and document. Thirty days is generally considered adequate time for a patient to find a new clinician,⁵ unless the patient lives in an area where there is a shortage of psychiatric clinicians, in which case a longer time period would be appropriate.³ Ensure your patient has a sufficient supply of medication(s) until they establish care with a new clinician.⁴ Offer to provide emergency care for a reasonable period of time during the termination process unless a safety concern requires immediate termination.⁴ Avoid situations in which the patient attempts to re-enter your care. Document the reason for the termination in your progress notes and keep a copy of the termination letter in the patient’s medical record.⁴

Psychiatric clinicians may unilaterally decide to end a treatment relationship with a patient when the relationship is no longer therapeutic, such as when the patient does not adhere to treatment, repeatedly misses appointments, exhibits abusive behaviors, or fails to pay for treatment.¹ Claims of abandonment can arise if ending the treatment relationship is not executed properly. Abandonment is the termination of a treatment relationship with a patient who remains in need of treatment, has no suitable substitute treatment, and subsequently experiences damages as a result of the termination.² When a patient terminates a treatment relationship, there are no legal bases for abandonment claims.³ In this article, I provide a few practical tips for properly terminating the doctor-patient relationship to limit the likelihood of claims of abandonment.

Know your jurisdiction’s requirements for terminating the relationship. Each state has its own legal definition of a doctor-patient relationship as well as requirements for ending it. Abandonment claims are unfounded in the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.³ Contact the appropriate licensing board to determine what your state’s regulatory requirements are. If necessary, consult with your attorney or a risk management professional for guidance.⁴

Communicate clearly. Communicate with your patient about the end of the treatment relationship in a clear and consistent manner, both verbally and in writing, because a termination should be viewed as a formal, documented event.³ Except in situations requiring immediate termination, psychiatric clinicians should inform the patient about the reason(s) for termination,⁴ the need for continued treatment,³ and the type of recommended treatment.³ This discussion should be summarized in a termination letter given to the patient that includes termination language, referral sources, the end date of treatment, and a request for authorization to release a copy of the patient’s medical records to their new clinician.^3,4

Give adequate time, set boundaries, and document. Thirty days is generally considered adequate time for a patient to find a new clinician,⁵ unless the patient lives in an area where there is a shortage of psychiatric clinicians, in which case a longer time period would be appropriate.³ Ensure your patient has a sufficient supply of medication(s) until they establish care with a new clinician.⁴ Offer to provide emergency care for a reasonable period of time during the termination process unless a safety concern requires immediate termination.⁴ Avoid situations in which the patient attempts to re-enter your care. Document the reason for the termination in your progress notes and keep a copy of the termination letter in the patient’s medical record.⁴

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

Creating an optimal learning environment for medical students studying psychiatry is essential for their growth and development. Over the last 25 years, I have worked with hundreds of medical students in a busy urban emergency department (ED), and I have developed a style that has worked well for them and for me. A supportive, engaging atmosphere can significantly enhance students’ understanding of psychiatric conditions, therapeutic approaches, and patient care. To ensure a productive and inspiring learning experience, educators should consider several key factors.

The educators

Faculty physicians should invest themselves in the students’ individual growth and aspirations by providing personalized guidance that caters to each student’s goals and challenges.¹ Educators must also embody a passion for psychiatry. I’ve found that integrating a lighthearted and humorous approach to my teaching style can relieve stress and enhance learning. I’ve also found it crucial to demonstrate empathy and effective communication skills that students can emulate in their professional development.² Encourage students to take an active role in their learning process by engaging in clinical discussions and decision-making. Lastly, providing regular assessments and constructive feedback in a supportive manner allows students to better understand their strengths and weaknesses, and to continually improve their knowledge and skills.³

The students

Encourage students to fully express their unique personalities, perspectives, and learning styles. This diversity can fuel creativity and promote an atmosphere of inclusivity and enhanced learning. Teach students to recognize the value in each patient encounter, because each offers a unique opportunity to deepen their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴ Instead of being mere observers, students should actively participate in their education by involving themselves in clinical discussions, treatment planning, and decision-making.

The environment

A supportive, inclusive learning environment should foster diversity, inclusivity, and collaborative learning by creating an engaging atmosphere in which students can express themselves. In my experience, a sense of relaxed focus can help alleviate stress and enhance creativity. Emphasize a patient-centered approach to instill empathy and compassion in students and enrich their understanding of psychiatric conditions.⁴

The peers

Encourage students to engage in peer feedback, which will provide their fellow trainees additional perspective on their performance and offer an avenue for constructive criticism and improvement.³ Promoting collaborative learning will foster a sense of camaraderie, help students share their diverse perspectives, and enhance the learning experience. Peers also play a crucial role in reinforcing positive behaviors and attitudes.

My extensive experience educating medical students studying psychiatry in a busy ED has taught me that creating an exceptional learning environment requires understanding the role of educators, students, the environment, and peers. By implementing these principles, educators can contribute to their students’ professional growth, equipping them with the skills and mindset necessary to become a compassionate, competent, effective physician.

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

I was disheartened with the June 2023 issue of Current Psychiatry. This issue included “Optimizing benzodiazepine treatment of anxiety disorders” (p. 22-33,39, doi:10.12788/cp.0365). While these medications may be helpful for short-term treatment, I find their irresponsible use to be a much greater problem than their underutilization.¹

The benzodiazepine pharmacology discussed in this article is interesting, but it would be helpful if it had been integrated within a much more extensive discussion of careful prescribing practices. In 2020, the FDA updated the boxed warning to alert prescribers to the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions associated with benzodiazepines.² I would hope that an article on benzodiazepines would provide more discussion and guidance surrounding these important issues.

The June 2023 issue also included “High-dose stimulants for adult ADHD” (p. 34-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0366). This article provided esoteric advice on managing stimulant therapy in the setting of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, yet I would regard stimulant misuse as a far more common and pressing issue.^3,4 The recent Drug Enforcement Administration investigation of telehealth stimulant prescribing is a notable example of this problem.⁵

The patient discussed in this article was receiving large doses of stimulants for a purported case of refractory attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The article provided a sparse differential diagnosis for the patient’s intractable symptoms. While rapid metabolism may be an explanation, I would also like to know how the authors ruled out physiological dependence and/or addiction to a controlled substance. How was misuse excluded? Was urine drug testing (UDS) performed? UDS is highly irregular among prescribers,⁶ which suggests that practices for detecting covert substance abuse and stimulant misuse are inadequate. Wouldn’t such investigations be fundamental to ethical stimulant prescribing?

Jeff Sanders, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in nonfatal and fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines—38 states and the District of Columbia, 2019-2020. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034a2.htm

2. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requiring boxed warning updated to improve safe use of benzodiazepine drug class. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requiring-boxed-warning-updated-improve-safe-use-benzodiazepine-drug-class

3. McCabe SE, Schulenberg JE, Wilens TE, et al. Prescription stimulant medical and nonmedical use among US secondary school students, 2005 to 2020. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(4):e238707. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.8707

4. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA updating warnings to improve safe use of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medical-product-safety-information/fda-updating-warnings-improve-safe-use-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

5. Vaidya A. Report: telehealth company’s prescribing practices come under DEA scrutiny. September 16, 2022. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://mhealthintelligence.com/news/report-telehealth-company-dones-prescribing-practices-come-under-dea-scrutiny

6. Zionts A. Some ADHD patients are drug-tested often, while others are never asked. Kaiser Health News. March 25, 2023. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna76330

Continue to: Drs. Stimpfl and Strawn respond

We thank Dr. Sanders for highlighting the need for clinical equipoise in considering the risks and benefits of medications—something that is true for benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and in fact all medications. He reminds us that the risks of misuse, dependence, and withdrawal associated with benzodiazepines led to a boxed warning in September 2020 and highlights recent trends of fatal and nonfatal benzodiazepine overdose, especially when combined with opiates.

Our article, which aimed to educate clinicians on benzodiazepine pharma­cology and patient-specific factors influencing benzodiazepine selection and dosing, did not focus significantly on the risks associated with benzodiazepines. We do encourage careful and individualized benzodiazepine prescribing. However, we wish to remind our colleagues that benzodiazepines, while associated with risks, continue to have utility in acute and periprocedural settings, and remain an important treatment option for patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (especially while waiting for other medications to take effect), catatonia, seizure disorders, and alcohol withdrawal.

We agree that patient-specific risk assessment is essential, as some patients benefit from benzodiazepines despite the risks. However, we also acknowledge that some individuals are at higher risk for adverse outcomes, including those with concurrent opiate use or who are prescribed other sedative-hypnotics; older adults and those with neurocognitive disorders; and patients susceptible to respiratory depression due to other medical reasons (eg, myasthenia gravis, sleep apnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Further, we agree that benzodiazepine use during pregnancy is generally not advised due to the risks of neonatal hypotonia and neonatal withdrawal syndrome¹ as well as a possible risk of cleft palate that has been reported in some studies.² Finally, paradoxical reactions may be more common at the extremes of age and in patients with intellectual disability or personality disorders.^3,4

Patient characteristics that have been associated with a higher risk of benzodiazepine use disorder include lower education/income, unemployment, having another substance use disorder, and severe psychopathology.⁵ In some studies, using benzodiazepines for prolonged periods at high doses as well as using those with a rapid onset of action was associated with an increased risk of benzodiazepine use disorder.^5-7

Ultimately, we concur with Dr. Sanders on the perils of the “irresponsible use” of medication and emphasize the need for discernment when choosing treatments to avoid rashly discarding an effective remedy while attempting to mitigate all conceivable risks.

Julia Stimpfl, MD
Jeffrey R. Strawn, MD
Cincinnati, Ohio

References

1. McElhatton PR. The effects of benzodiazepine use during pregnancy and lactation. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8(6):461-475. doi:10.1016/0890-6238(94)90029-9

2. Enato E, Moretti M, Koren G. The fetal safety of benzodiazepines: an updated meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(1):46-48. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34772-7 Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):319.

3. Hakimi Y, Petitpain N, Pinzani V, et al. Paradoxical adverse drug reactions: descriptive analysis of French reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;76(8):1169-1174. doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02892-2

4. Paton C. Benzodiazepines and disinhibition: a review. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2002;26(12):460-462. doi:10.1192/pb.26.12.460

5. Fride Tvete I, Bjørner T, Skomedal T. Risk factors for excessive benzodiazepine use in a working age population: a nationwide 5-year survey in Norway. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015;33(4):252-259. doi:10.3109/02813432.2015.1117282

6. Griffiths RR, Johnson MW. Relative abuse liability of hypnotic drugs: a conceptual framework and algorithm for differentiating among compounds. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66 Suppl 9:31-41.

7. Kan CC, Hilberink SR, Breteler MH. Determination of the main risk factors for benzodiazepine dependence using a multivariate and multidimensional approach. Compr Psychiatry. 2004;45(2):88-94. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2003.12.007

Continue to: Drs. Sarma and Grady respond

Dr. Sanders’ letter highlights the potential caveats associated with prescribing controlled substances. We agree that our short case summary includes numerous interesting elements, each of which would be worthy of further exploration and discussion. Our choice was to highlight the patient history of bariatric surgery and use this as a springboard into a review of stimulants, including the newest formulations for ADHD. For more than 1 year, many generic stimulants have been in short supply, and patients and clinicians have been seeking other therapeutic options. Given this background and with newer, branded stimulant use becoming more commonplace, we believe our article was useful and timely.

Our original intent had been to include an example of a controlled substance agreement. Regrettably, there was simply not enough space for this document or the additional discussion that its inclusion would deem necessary. Nevertheless, had the May 2023 FDA requirement for manufacturers to update the labeling of prescription stimulants¹ to clarify misuse and abuse been published before our article’s final revision, we would have mentioned it and provided the appropriate link.

Subbu J. Sarma, MD, FAPA
Kansas City, Missouri

Sarah E. Grady, PharmD, BCPS, BCPP
Des Moines, Iowa

References

1. US Food & Drug Administration. FDA requires updates to clarify labeling of prescription stimulants used to treat ADHD and other conditions. Accessed August 9, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-updates-clarify-labeling-prescription-stimulants-used-treat-adhd-and-other-conditions

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong. 

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong. 

The persistent notion that multiple sclerosis (MS) is predominantly a White patient’s disease has been challenged by scientific data and our clinical experience in the field. Recent research has shown a higher risk of MS in non-White populations than originally thought. This may be surprising, but new data are influencing the way we now approach MS in under-represented minorities, bringing this topic to the forefront of scientific interest.

     The early conviction that “there is no MS in minorities” led to underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of MS in those patients, which in turn deepened these patients’ distrust of physicians and reluctance to seek further medical care, very often delivered by non-minority providers. Inequities in social determinants of health, low health literacy, and lack of private insurance, along with structural racism in healthcare, has further hindered active engagement with an already marginalized patient population in their MS care. This lack of engagement and lack of minorities in scientific research has proved to be unfavorable for MS research as well, creating large and persistent knowledge gaps in understanding MS course, severity, and response to treatment specific to this group. A 2014 PubMed search found 52,000 publications on MS in English, but in only 136 of those were minority patients with MS (Black or Hispanic/Latino) the primary research focus. In 2019, the same search indicated that the subsequent 5 years produced only 30 more articles focusing solely on minority patients.

      Research participation of underrepresented minorities is another area where we, as a field, continue to fail these patients. A review of participant enrollment in MS clinical trials that took place between 1993 and 2006 showed a significant decrease in the percentage of enrolled Black patients (from 7% to about 4%). This trend did not improve by the DEFINE treatment trial (2012), in which only 2% of enrolled patients were Black. Of the 1246 participants in the 2019 SUNBEAM MS study, only 2 were Black. Low numbers of minority patients in trials prevent us from drawing any reasonable conclusion as to the efficacy of disease-modifying agents in those patients and make the goal of personalized medicine for this group impossible.

        The results of the research conducted on these groups are compelling and should be prompting further work. Not only do Black patients have a higher risk of MS, but there is also now convincing evidence that MS in minorities is more severe overall, causing early progression of disability and necessitating assistive gait devices such as a cane or wheelchair. Minority patients tend to have more extensive involvement of spinal cord and infra-tentorial brain structures during the disease, which could explain the increased likelihood of more severe disease and earlier disability. Minority patients were admitted to nursing homes at a younger age, with greater physical and cognitive impairment than nonminority patients. A study looking at MS mortality between 1999 and 2015 found that Black males with MS had the highest mortality rate before age 45, and Black females before age 53. MS mortality increased with age but peaked at age 55 to 64 for Black patients and 65 to 74 for White patients. Underrepresented minorities are also less likely to use community resources, case management, medical equipment, and home nursing services. When looking at other measures of disease impact on these patients, studies evaluating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data showed higher lesion volume in Black patients with MS, as well as a higher degree of brain demyelination and atrophy when compared with White patients. 

         Treatment strategies currently used for underrepresented minority patients, as well as estimations of medication efficacy, treatment responses, and adverse-event profiles are largely driven by data from clinical trials with only minimal representation of those patients. How can we propose a patient-tailored and individualized treatment plan without these crucial data? Given that, to this day, not a single trial has focused solely on underrepresented minorities, we are left with either post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses of existing trials or pragmatic, observational, and very often retrospective studies using chart analysis. Notwithstanding the methodological flaws of either approach, prior studies did suggest worse response to platform therapies in Black patients, but equal response to high-efficacy therapies when compared with White patients. 

       Definitive biological underpinnings of disparities in disease severity have not been identified. In recent years, the field of health outcomes research has suggested we move away from considering racial categories as biologically distinct and instead focus on long-overlooked sociodemographic and modifiable lifestyle

factors. The role of diet, exercise, body mass index, smoking, and vascular comorbidities as risk factors associated with worse MS outcomes has been previously shown; however, these factors have not been rigorously assessed in underrepresented populations with MS. Recent studies focused on uncovering what drives the differences in MS severity in underrepresented populations disagree on the role biological differences, socioeconomic disparities, and structural racism in both healthcare settings and society play in answering this question. While it is plausible that a combination of these factors might explain our observations, more research on larger, underserved patient populations and better-defined measures of socioeconomic differences are needed to answer this complex question. 

         The path of recognizing and correcting our mistakes is not simple but must be done, and our underrepresented minority patients depend on our swift action. There are many places where we as a field of experts can and must do better—in communities, healthcare systems, and society in general. 

       Increasing community health literacy around MS, rebuilding trust, and addressing structural racism on every level is important. Outreach and educational programs that include in-person meetings and leverage social media platforms can help empower patients and their families—and hopefully increase trust in healthcare providers. Devising targeted interventions focusing on modifiable factors of a healthy lifestyle such as diet and exercise can increase community engagement and strengthen the support system for our patients. Increasing diversity in our own field of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers can also aid in strengthening mutual relationships. 

         Improving access to comprehensive MS care for underrepresented minorities who very often also lack robust insurance coverage is paramount. Recipients of comprehensive care are more likely to participate in research, as these patients receive more well-rounded care and have a lower risk of mismanaged comorbidities. Their involvement in the treatment plan is higher, which also improves compliance with treatment. Patients in comprehensive care centers are more likely to receive newer treatment agents with better efficacy without hindrance of monitoring barriers, and they are likely to benefit from treatment strategies using newly approved agents soon after US Food and Drug Administration approval. 

          Increasing research participation and, ideally, conducting a clinical trial devoted solely to studying MS in underrepresented minorities is something for which we should actively strive. Identifying the main factors prohibiting enrollment and retention of a high number of minority participants in trials is critical to success. Multiple deterrents in day-to-day life, very often directly connected to economic hardship and racism, pose a very real threat to equitable trial participation. To even consider a successful trial for underrepresented minorities, we must do better in devising strategies and accommodations to help overcome those barriers. 

         The underserved minorities with MS deserve and need our attention and focus. These patients have largely been neglected and forgotten, but now are emerging at the forefront of our attention—where they belong. 

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Anti-drug antibody (ADA) testing for biologics, particularly anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, has been commercially available for several years, though its clinical use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known owing to lack of prospective data. Bitoun and colleagues analyzed data from the European ABI-RA registry to evaluate the association between ADA and the anti–TNF monoclonal antibodies (mAb) etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab, and clinical response (as measured by disease activity scores, inflammatory markers, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology [EULAR] response rate). Higher rates of ADA positivity were seen in patients treated with rituximab (50%), anti-TNF mAb (38%), and tocilizumab (20%) compared with etanercept (6%). Patients who had a positive ADA test were less likely to have a EULAR response. In addition, patients treated with methotrexate were less likely to have persistent ADA. Though the study was not powered enough to detect differences between the drug classes, the evidence presented is compelling and suggests a role for measuring ADA in patients with RA who do not respond to treatment.

RA is well-known to be associated with cardiovascular disease, particularly atherosclerotic disease and heart failure, but its association with valvular heart disease and its progression has not been well-explored in the literature. Johnson and colleagues performed a cohort study of over 73,000 patients with RA in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system compared with 640,000 patients without RA to evaluate the incidence of aortic stenosis, need for intervention, and risk for death. Though the overall incidence rate was low (about 3%), patients with RA had a higher risk for aortic stenosis, with a hazard ratio of 1.48 compared with those without RA, as well as a higher risk for aortic valve replacement and aortic stenosis–related death. The risk for aortic stenosis was associated with hypertension, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease, as well as a body mass index > 30 kg/m², although not with a history of smoking or diabetes. Because the study was performed using data from the VHA — that is, from predominantly male patients — this finding may not be generalizable. In addition, the diagnosis of aortic stenosis is generally reliant on echocardiography and may be detected while searching for other conditions not evaluated here (such as pericarditis). As such, these findings would not support routine screening in patients with RA without other reasons for suspicion of valvular heart disease.

In particular, the increase in cardiovascular risk associated with glucocorticoid therapy in patients with RA has received increased scrutiny, along with other side effects of systemic glucocorticoids. In a recent retrospective study, So and colleagues examined the clinical data of over 12,000 patients with RA treated in public hospitals in Hong Kong with a mean of 9 years of follow-up. Consistent with prior studies, systemic glucocorticoid use (prednisolone equivalent > 5 mg daily) was associated with an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, whereas lower doses did not increase cardiovascular risk. Because the data on some disease activity measures and traditional cardiovascular risk factors (such as smoking or obesity) were not available in the database, the study supports, but does not expand on, prior evidence regarding cardiovascular risk.

Almayali and colleagues also looked at glucocorticoid therapy in RA in a follow-up study to the previously published pragmatic randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled GLORIA study, which evaluated the effects of 5 mg/d prednisolone added to standard care for 2 years in patients with active RA who were age 65 years or older. In the current study, 191 patients out of the initial 451 were followed for 3 months and prednisolone tapered off. Patients who tapered off prednisolone had, as expected, an increased risk for flare but no evidence of adrenal insufficiency. Although, again, this is not likely to change practice, it does suggest that glucocorticoid tapering is a reasonable goal in RA therapeutic trials.

Anti-drug antibody (ADA) testing for biologics, particularly anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, has been commercially available for several years, though its clinical use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known owing to lack of prospective data. Bitoun and colleagues analyzed data from the European ABI-RA registry to evaluate the association between ADA and the anti–TNF monoclonal antibodies (mAb) etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab, and clinical response (as measured by disease activity scores, inflammatory markers, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology [EULAR] response rate). Higher rates of ADA positivity were seen in patients treated with rituximab (50%), anti-TNF mAb (38%), and tocilizumab (20%) compared with etanercept (6%). Patients who had a positive ADA test were less likely to have a EULAR response. In addition, patients treated with methotrexate were less likely to have persistent ADA. Though the study was not powered enough to detect differences between the drug classes, the evidence presented is compelling and suggests a role for measuring ADA in patients with RA who do not respond to treatment.

RA is well-known to be associated with cardiovascular disease, particularly atherosclerotic disease and heart failure, but its association with valvular heart disease and its progression has not been well-explored in the literature. Johnson and colleagues performed a cohort study of over 73,000 patients with RA in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system compared with 640,000 patients without RA to evaluate the incidence of aortic stenosis, need for intervention, and risk for death. Though the overall incidence rate was low (about 3%), patients with RA had a higher risk for aortic stenosis, with a hazard ratio of 1.48 compared with those without RA, as well as a higher risk for aortic valve replacement and aortic stenosis–related death. The risk for aortic stenosis was associated with hypertension, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease, as well as a body mass index > 30 kg/m², although not with a history of smoking or diabetes. Because the study was performed using data from the VHA — that is, from predominantly male patients — this finding may not be generalizable. In addition, the diagnosis of aortic stenosis is generally reliant on echocardiography and may be detected while searching for other conditions not evaluated here (such as pericarditis). As such, these findings would not support routine screening in patients with RA without other reasons for suspicion of valvular heart disease.

In particular, the increase in cardiovascular risk associated with glucocorticoid therapy in patients with RA has received increased scrutiny, along with other side effects of systemic glucocorticoids. In a recent retrospective study, So and colleagues examined the clinical data of over 12,000 patients with RA treated in public hospitals in Hong Kong with a mean of 9 years of follow-up. Consistent with prior studies, systemic glucocorticoid use (prednisolone equivalent > 5 mg daily) was associated with an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, whereas lower doses did not increase cardiovascular risk. Because the data on some disease activity measures and traditional cardiovascular risk factors (such as smoking or obesity) were not available in the database, the study supports, but does not expand on, prior evidence regarding cardiovascular risk.

Almayali and colleagues also looked at glucocorticoid therapy in RA in a follow-up study to the previously published pragmatic randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled GLORIA study, which evaluated the effects of 5 mg/d prednisolone added to standard care for 2 years in patients with active RA who were age 65 years or older. In the current study, 191 patients out of the initial 451 were followed for 3 months and prednisolone tapered off. Patients who tapered off prednisolone had, as expected, an increased risk for flare but no evidence of adrenal insufficiency. Although, again, this is not likely to change practice, it does suggest that glucocorticoid tapering is a reasonable goal in RA therapeutic trials.

Anti-drug antibody (ADA) testing for biologics, particularly anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents, has been commercially available for several years, though its clinical use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known owing to lack of prospective data. Bitoun and colleagues analyzed data from the European ABI-RA registry to evaluate the association between ADA and the anti–TNF monoclonal antibodies (mAb) etanercept, tocilizumab, and rituximab, and clinical response (as measured by disease activity scores, inflammatory markers, and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology [EULAR] response rate). Higher rates of ADA positivity were seen in patients treated with rituximab (50%), anti-TNF mAb (38%), and tocilizumab (20%) compared with etanercept (6%). Patients who had a positive ADA test were less likely to have a EULAR response. In addition, patients treated with methotrexate were less likely to have persistent ADA. Though the study was not powered enough to detect differences between the drug classes, the evidence presented is compelling and suggests a role for measuring ADA in patients with RA who do not respond to treatment.

RA is well-known to be associated with cardiovascular disease, particularly atherosclerotic disease and heart failure, but its association with valvular heart disease and its progression has not been well-explored in the literature. Johnson and colleagues performed a cohort study of over 73,000 patients with RA in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system compared with 640,000 patients without RA to evaluate the incidence of aortic stenosis, need for intervention, and risk for death. Though the overall incidence rate was low (about 3%), patients with RA had a higher risk for aortic stenosis, with a hazard ratio of 1.48 compared with those without RA, as well as a higher risk for aortic valve replacement and aortic stenosis–related death. The risk for aortic stenosis was associated with hypertension, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease, as well as a body mass index > 30 kg/m², although not with a history of smoking or diabetes. Because the study was performed using data from the VHA — that is, from predominantly male patients — this finding may not be generalizable. In addition, the diagnosis of aortic stenosis is generally reliant on echocardiography and may be detected while searching for other conditions not evaluated here (such as pericarditis). As such, these findings would not support routine screening in patients with RA without other reasons for suspicion of valvular heart disease.

In particular, the increase in cardiovascular risk associated with glucocorticoid therapy in patients with RA has received increased scrutiny, along with other side effects of systemic glucocorticoids. In a recent retrospective study, So and colleagues examined the clinical data of over 12,000 patients with RA treated in public hospitals in Hong Kong with a mean of 9 years of follow-up. Consistent with prior studies, systemic glucocorticoid use (prednisolone equivalent > 5 mg daily) was associated with an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events, whereas lower doses did not increase cardiovascular risk. Because the data on some disease activity measures and traditional cardiovascular risk factors (such as smoking or obesity) were not available in the database, the study supports, but does not expand on, prior evidence regarding cardiovascular risk.

Almayali and colleagues also looked at glucocorticoid therapy in RA in a follow-up study to the previously published pragmatic randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled GLORIA study, which evaluated the effects of 5 mg/d prednisolone added to standard care for 2 years in patients with active RA who were age 65 years or older. In the current study, 191 patients out of the initial 451 were followed for 3 months and prednisolone tapered off. Patients who tapered off prednisolone had, as expected, an increased risk for flare but no evidence of adrenal insufficiency. Although, again, this is not likely to change practice, it does suggest that glucocorticoid tapering is a reasonable goal in RA therapeutic trials.

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) can affect the bioavailability and effectiveness of concomitant medications, including cancer therapies. A retrospective study by Lee and colleagues aimed to identify the clinical outcomes of patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic BC who were concomitantly using PPI and palbociclib. The study included 1310 patients, of which 344 received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib and 966 patients received palbociclib alone. Results showed that patients who received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib had significantly shorter progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.46-2.13) and overall survival (hazard ratio 2.72; 95% CI 2.07-3.53) rates compared with those who received palbociclib alone. These results suggest that the concomitant use of PPI with palbociclib may alter the therapeutic efficacy of the drug. More research studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Pfeiler and colleagues examined the association of BMI with side effects, treatment discontinuation, and efficacy of palbociclib. This study looked at 5698 patients with early-stage HR+ BC who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as part of a preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial. Results showed that in women who received adjuvant palbociclib, higher BMI was associated with a significantly lower rate of neutropenia (odds ratio for a 1-unit change in BMI 0.93; 95% CI 0.92-0.95) and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio for a 10-unit change in BMI 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) compared with normal-weight patients. No effect of BMI on palbociclib efficacy was observed at 31 months of follow-up. Further studies are needed to validate these findings in different cohorts.

In cases of early-stage breast cancer (clinical T1, T2) where patients undergo upfront breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), completion of axillary lymph node dissection (CLND) is often omitted if only one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes are detected. A study by Zaveri and colleagues looked at outcomes among 548 patients with cT1-2 N0 BC who were treated with upfront mastectomy and had one or two positive lymph nodes on SLNB. The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of overall locoregional recurrence was comparable between patients who underwent vs those who did not undergo CLND (1.8% vs 1.3%; P = .93); receipt of post-mastectomy radiation therapy did not affect the locoregional recurrence rate in both categories of patients who underwent SLNB alone and SLNB with CLND (P = .1638). These results suggest that CLND may not necessarily improve outcomes in this patient population. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) can affect the bioavailability and effectiveness of concomitant medications, including cancer therapies. A retrospective study by Lee and colleagues aimed to identify the clinical outcomes of patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic BC who were concomitantly using PPI and palbociclib. The study included 1310 patients, of which 344 received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib and 966 patients received palbociclib alone. Results showed that patients who received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib had significantly shorter progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.46-2.13) and overall survival (hazard ratio 2.72; 95% CI 2.07-3.53) rates compared with those who received palbociclib alone. These results suggest that the concomitant use of PPI with palbociclib may alter the therapeutic efficacy of the drug. More research studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Pfeiler and colleagues examined the association of BMI with side effects, treatment discontinuation, and efficacy of palbociclib. This study looked at 5698 patients with early-stage HR+ BC who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as part of a preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial. Results showed that in women who received adjuvant palbociclib, higher BMI was associated with a significantly lower rate of neutropenia (odds ratio for a 1-unit change in BMI 0.93; 95% CI 0.92-0.95) and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio for a 10-unit change in BMI 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) compared with normal-weight patients. No effect of BMI on palbociclib efficacy was observed at 31 months of follow-up. Further studies are needed to validate these findings in different cohorts.

In cases of early-stage breast cancer (clinical T1, T2) where patients undergo upfront breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), completion of axillary lymph node dissection (CLND) is often omitted if only one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes are detected. A study by Zaveri and colleagues looked at outcomes among 548 patients with cT1-2 N0 BC who were treated with upfront mastectomy and had one or two positive lymph nodes on SLNB. The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of overall locoregional recurrence was comparable between patients who underwent vs those who did not undergo CLND (1.8% vs 1.3%; P = .93); receipt of post-mastectomy radiation therapy did not affect the locoregional recurrence rate in both categories of patients who underwent SLNB alone and SLNB with CLND (P = .1638). These results suggest that CLND may not necessarily improve outcomes in this patient population. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) can affect the bioavailability and effectiveness of concomitant medications, including cancer therapies. A retrospective study by Lee and colleagues aimed to identify the clinical outcomes of patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced or metastatic BC who were concomitantly using PPI and palbociclib. The study included 1310 patients, of which 344 received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib and 966 patients received palbociclib alone. Results showed that patients who received concomitant PPI plus palbociclib had significantly shorter progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.46-2.13) and overall survival (hazard ratio 2.72; 95% CI 2.07-3.53) rates compared with those who received palbociclib alone. These results suggest that the concomitant use of PPI with palbociclib may alter the therapeutic efficacy of the drug. More research studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Pfeiler and colleagues examined the association of BMI with side effects, treatment discontinuation, and efficacy of palbociclib. This study looked at 5698 patients with early-stage HR+ BC who received palbociclib plus endocrine therapy as part of a preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial. Results showed that in women who received adjuvant palbociclib, higher BMI was associated with a significantly lower rate of neutropenia (odds ratio for a 1-unit change in BMI 0.93; 95% CI 0.92-0.95) and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio for a 10-unit change in BMI 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) compared with normal-weight patients. No effect of BMI on palbociclib efficacy was observed at 31 months of follow-up. Further studies are needed to validate these findings in different cohorts.

In cases of early-stage breast cancer (clinical T1, T2) where patients undergo upfront breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), completion of axillary lymph node dissection (CLND) is often omitted if only one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes are detected. A study by Zaveri and colleagues looked at outcomes among 548 patients with cT1-2 N0 BC who were treated with upfront mastectomy and had one or two positive lymph nodes on SLNB. The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of overall locoregional recurrence was comparable between patients who underwent vs those who did not undergo CLND (1.8% vs 1.3%; P = .93); receipt of post-mastectomy radiation therapy did not affect the locoregional recurrence rate in both categories of patients who underwent SLNB alone and SLNB with CLND (P = .1638). These results suggest that CLND may not necessarily improve outcomes in this patient population. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The Diagnosis: Flagellate Dermatitis

Upon further questioning by dermatology, the patient noted recent ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, which were not a part of his typical diet. Based on the appearance of the rash in the context of ingesting shiitake mushrooms, our patient was diagnosed with flagellate dermatitis. At 6-week followup, the patient’s rash had resolved spontaneously without further intervention.

Flagellate dermatitis usually appears on the torso as linear whiplike streaks.¹ The eruption often is pruritic and may be preceded by severe pruritus. Flagellate dermatitis also is a well-documented complication of bleomycin sulfate therapy with an incidence rate of 8% to 66%.²

Other chemotherapeutic causes include peplomycin, bendamustine, docetaxel, cisplatin, and trastuzumab.³ Flagellate dermatitis also is seen in some patients with dermatomyositis.⁴ A thorough patient history, including medications and dietary habits, is necessary to differentiate flagellate dermatitis from dermatomyositis.

Flagellate dermatitis, also known as shiitake dermatitis, is observed as erythematous flagellate eruptions involving the trunk or extremities that present within 2 hours to 5 days of handling or consuming undercooked or raw shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes),^5,6 as was observed in our patient. Lentinan is the polysaccharide component of the shiitake species and is destabilized by heat.⁶ Ingestion of polysaccharide is associated with dermatitis, particularly in Japan, China, and Korea; however, the consumption of shiitake mushrooms has increased worldwide, and cases increasingly are reported outside of these typical regions. The rash typically resolves spontaneously; therefore, treatment is supportive. However, more severe symptomatic cases may require courses of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.⁶

In our case, the differential diagnosis consisted of acute urticaria, cutaneous dermatomyositis, dermatographism, and maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis. Acute urticaria displays well-circumscribed edematous papules or plaques, and individual lesions last less than 24 hours. Cutaneous dermatomyositis includes additional systemic manifestations such as fatigue, malaise, and myalgia, as well as involvement of the gastrointestinal, respiratory, or cardiac organs. Dermatographism is evoked by stroking or rubbing of the skin, which results in asymptomatic lesions that persist for 15 to 30 minutes. Cases of maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis more often are seen in children, and the histamine release most often causes gastrointestinal tract symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, as well as flushing, blushing, pruritus, respiratory difficulty, and malaise.

The Diagnosis: Flagellate Dermatitis

Upon further questioning by dermatology, the patient noted recent ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, which were not a part of his typical diet. Based on the appearance of the rash in the context of ingesting shiitake mushrooms, our patient was diagnosed with flagellate dermatitis. At 6-week followup, the patient’s rash had resolved spontaneously without further intervention.

Flagellate dermatitis usually appears on the torso as linear whiplike streaks.¹ The eruption often is pruritic and may be preceded by severe pruritus. Flagellate dermatitis also is a well-documented complication of bleomycin sulfate therapy with an incidence rate of 8% to 66%.²

Other chemotherapeutic causes include peplomycin, bendamustine, docetaxel, cisplatin, and trastuzumab.³ Flagellate dermatitis also is seen in some patients with dermatomyositis.⁴ A thorough patient history, including medications and dietary habits, is necessary to differentiate flagellate dermatitis from dermatomyositis.

Flagellate dermatitis, also known as shiitake dermatitis, is observed as erythematous flagellate eruptions involving the trunk or extremities that present within 2 hours to 5 days of handling or consuming undercooked or raw shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes),^5,6 as was observed in our patient. Lentinan is the polysaccharide component of the shiitake species and is destabilized by heat.⁶ Ingestion of polysaccharide is associated with dermatitis, particularly in Japan, China, and Korea; however, the consumption of shiitake mushrooms has increased worldwide, and cases increasingly are reported outside of these typical regions. The rash typically resolves spontaneously; therefore, treatment is supportive. However, more severe symptomatic cases may require courses of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.⁶

In our case, the differential diagnosis consisted of acute urticaria, cutaneous dermatomyositis, dermatographism, and maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis. Acute urticaria displays well-circumscribed edematous papules or plaques, and individual lesions last less than 24 hours. Cutaneous dermatomyositis includes additional systemic manifestations such as fatigue, malaise, and myalgia, as well as involvement of the gastrointestinal, respiratory, or cardiac organs. Dermatographism is evoked by stroking or rubbing of the skin, which results in asymptomatic lesions that persist for 15 to 30 minutes. Cases of maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis more often are seen in children, and the histamine release most often causes gastrointestinal tract symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, as well as flushing, blushing, pruritus, respiratory difficulty, and malaise.

The Diagnosis: Flagellate Dermatitis

Upon further questioning by dermatology, the patient noted recent ingestion of shiitake mushrooms, which were not a part of his typical diet. Based on the appearance of the rash in the context of ingesting shiitake mushrooms, our patient was diagnosed with flagellate dermatitis. At 6-week followup, the patient’s rash had resolved spontaneously without further intervention.

Flagellate dermatitis usually appears on the torso as linear whiplike streaks.¹ The eruption often is pruritic and may be preceded by severe pruritus. Flagellate dermatitis also is a well-documented complication of bleomycin sulfate therapy with an incidence rate of 8% to 66%.²

Other chemotherapeutic causes include peplomycin, bendamustine, docetaxel, cisplatin, and trastuzumab.³ Flagellate dermatitis also is seen in some patients with dermatomyositis.⁴ A thorough patient history, including medications and dietary habits, is necessary to differentiate flagellate dermatitis from dermatomyositis.

Flagellate dermatitis, also known as shiitake dermatitis, is observed as erythematous flagellate eruptions involving the trunk or extremities that present within 2 hours to 5 days of handling or consuming undercooked or raw shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes),^5,6 as was observed in our patient. Lentinan is the polysaccharide component of the shiitake species and is destabilized by heat.⁶ Ingestion of polysaccharide is associated with dermatitis, particularly in Japan, China, and Korea; however, the consumption of shiitake mushrooms has increased worldwide, and cases increasingly are reported outside of these typical regions. The rash typically resolves spontaneously; therefore, treatment is supportive. However, more severe symptomatic cases may require courses of topical corticosteroids and antihistamines.⁶

In our case, the differential diagnosis consisted of acute urticaria, cutaneous dermatomyositis, dermatographism, and maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis. Acute urticaria displays well-circumscribed edematous papules or plaques, and individual lesions last less than 24 hours. Cutaneous dermatomyositis includes additional systemic manifestations such as fatigue, malaise, and myalgia, as well as involvement of the gastrointestinal, respiratory, or cardiac organs. Dermatographism is evoked by stroking or rubbing of the skin, which results in asymptomatic lesions that persist for 15 to 30 minutes. Cases of maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis more often are seen in children, and the histamine release most often causes gastrointestinal tract symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, as well as flushing, blushing, pruritus, respiratory difficulty, and malaise.