In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In April 2020, hospitalist Samantha Houston, MD, lost her job at Baptist Memorial Hospital–North, in Oxford, Miss., after she publicly campaigned to get donations of N95 masks for nurses. Dr. Houston filed a lawsuit against the hospital, saying she was improperly fired for speaking out. The lawsuit has not yet gone to trial.

John Fedele/Getty Images

In January 2017, emergency physician Raymond Brovont, MD, was fired by EmCare, an emergency physician staffing company, after reporting understaffing at hospitals with which it contracted in the Kansas City, Mo., area. Dr. Brovont sued EmCare, and the company lost the case. In February 2019, it was ordered to pay him $13.1 million in damages.

These are just two of several cases in recent years in which physicians have spoken out about problems involving patient care and have been sanctioned. Other physicians who see problems choose to stay silent.

Doctors often hesitate to speak out because of the prospect of losing their jobs. A 2013 study of emergency physicians found that nearly 20% reported a possible or real threat to their employment if they expressed concerns about quality of care.

When physicians do not speak openly about important medical issues, the quality of care in their institutions suffers, said a coauthor of the study, Larry D. Weiss, MD, JD, a retired professor of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

“Physicians can’t effectively represent patients if they are always thinking they can get fired for what they say,” Dr. Weiss said. “If you don’t have protections like due process, which is often the case, you are less likely to speak out.”

The COVID-19 pandemic put to the test physicians’ ability to speak publicly about troublesome issues. In the first few weeks, health care facilities were struggling to obtain personal protective equipment (PPE) and to create policies that would keep patients and caregivers safe.

Physicians such as Dr. Houston took the initiative to make sure their institutions were taking the right steps against COVID-19 and found themselves at loggerheads with administrators who were concerned that their organizations were being portrayed as unsafe.
 

The case of one physician who spoke out

One of the highest-profile cases of a physician speaking out and being removed from work during the pandemic is that of Ming Lin, MD, an emergency physician who lost a job he had held for 17 years at St. Joseph Medical Center, in Bellingham, Wash. Dr. Lin lost his job after he made a series of Facebook posts that criticized the hospital’s COVID-19 preparedness efforts.

In an interview, Dr. Lin discussed the details of his situation to a degree that rarely occurs in such cases. This is one of the most extensive interviews he has granted.
 

Postings on Facebook

Dr. Lin said that on the basis of an intense study of the virus at the onset of the pandemic, he developed many ideas as to what could be done to mitigate its spread. While working as a locum tenens physician on his time off, he could see how others dealt with COVID-19.

Dr. Lin said from past experiences he did not feel that he could present his ideas directly to administration and be heard, so he decided to air his ideas about how his hospital could handle COVID-19 on his Facebook page, which drew a large audience.

He said he was certain that hospital administrators were reading his posts. He said receptionists at this hospital were advised not to wear masks, evidently because it would alarm patients. Dr. Lin said he posted concerns about their safety and called for them to wear masks. Soon after, the hospital directed receptionists to wear masks.

Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts also criticized the hospital for taking what he felt was too long to get results on COVID-19 tests. “It was taking them up to 10 days to get test results, because samples were being sent to a lab in California,” he said. He suggested it would be faster to send samples to the University of Washington. Soon after, the hospital started sending samples there.

In just a couple of weeks, Dr. Lin said, he voiced almost a dozen concerns. Each time the hospital made changes in line with his recommendations. Although he didn’t get any direct acknowledgment from the hospital for his help, he said he felt he was making a positive impact.
 

How employers react to physicians who speak out

Physicians who speak out about conditions tend to deeply disturb administrators, said William P. Sullivan, DO, JD, an emergency physician and lawyer in Frankfort, Ill., who has written about physicians being terminated by hospitals.

“These physicians go to the news media or they use social media,” Dr. Sullivan said, “but hospital administrators don’t want the public to hear bad things about their hospital.”

Then the public might not come to the hospital, which is an administrator’s worst nightmare. Even if physicians think their criticisms are reasonable, administrators may still fear a resulting drop in patients.

Dr. Houston, for example, was helping her Mississippi hospital by collecting donations of N95 masks for nurses, but to administrators, it showed that the hospital did not have enough masks.

“It is not helpful to stoke fear and anxiety, even if the intent is sincere,” a spokesperson for the hospital said.
 

Administrator fires back

Dr. Lin’s posts were deeply concerning to Richard DeCarlo, chief operating officer of PeaceHealth, which runs St. Joseph Hospital. Mr. DeCarlo discussed his concerns in a video interview in April with the blogger Zubin Damania, MD, known as ZDoggMD.

Comments on Dr. Lin’s Facebook posts showed that people “were fearful to go to the hospital,” he told Dr. Damania. “They were concluding that they would need to drive to another hospital.”

Mr. DeCarlo said he was also unhappy that Dr. Lin did not directly contact administrators about his concerns. “He didn’t communicate with his medical director,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the interview. “The ED staff had been meeting three times a week with the chief medical officer to make sure they had everything they needed, but he only attended one of these meetings and didn’t ask any questions.”

Dr. Lin maintains he did ask questions at the first meeting but stopped attending because he felt he wasn’t being heeded. “I found their tone not very receptive,” he said.
 

Doctor allegedly offered “misinformation”

At the start of the pandemic, some hospitals made it clear what would happen to doctors who brought up lack of PPE or other problems to the media. For example, NYU Langone Medical Center in New York sent an email to staff warning that speaking to the media without permission “will be subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”

PeaceHealth took a different tack. “It’s not that we have a policy that says don’t ever talk to the media,” Mr. DeCarlo said in the ZDoggMD interview, but in Dr. Lin’s case, “what was at issue was the misinformation. His leader went to him and said, ‘Look, you’re posting things that aren’t accurate.’ ”

Dr. Lin disputes that he provided any misinformation. In the interview, Mr. DeCarlo cited just one example of alleged misinformation. He said Dr. Lin called for a tent outside the emergency department (ED) to protect patients entering the department from aerosol exposure to COVID-19. Mr. DeCarlo said the tent was not needed because fewer people were using the ED.

“To put it in an extreme way,” Mr. DeCarlo said of Dr. Lin’s posts, “it was like yelling fire in a theater where there is not a fire.”

Dr. Lin said the hospital did briefly erect a tent and then removed it, and he still insisted that a tent was a good idea. He added that Mr. DeCarlo never mentioned any of the other suggestions Dr. Lin made, nor did he state that the hospital adopted them.
 

Doctor gets a warning

Dr. Lin said that after he started posting his concerns, he got a call from the emergency department director who worked for TeamHealth, an emergency medicine staffing firm that contracted with PeaceHealth and employed Dr. Lin, too.

Dr. Lin said his immediate supervisor at TeamHealth told him the hospital was unhappy with his posts and that he should take them down and suggested he might be fired. Dr. Lin said the supervisor also asked him to apologize to the hospital administration for these posts, but he refused to do so.

“Retracting and apologizing was not only wrong but would have left me vulnerable to being terminated with no repercussions,” he said.

“At that point, I realized I had crossed the Rubicon,” Dr. Lin said. He thought he might well be fired, no matter what he did, so he took his story to The Seattle Times, which had a much wider platform than his Facebook page had.

Dr. Lin lost his job at St. Joseph a week after The Seattle Times story about him appeared. “About 10 minutes before my shift was supposed to start, I received a text message from TeamHealth saying that someone else would be taking the shift,” he said.

In a release, TeamHealth insisted Dr. Lin was not fired and that he was scheduled to be reassigned to work at other hospitals. Dr. Lin, however, said he was not told this at the time and that he found out later that the new assignment would involve a pay cut and a significant commute. He said he has not taken any new assignments from TeamHealth since he lost his job at St. Joseph.

Dr. Lin has filed a lawsuit against PeaceHealth, TeamHealth, and Mr. DeCarlo, asking for his job back and for an apology. He said he has not asked for any financial damages at this point.

Since leaving St. Joseph, Dr. Lin has been working as an administrator for the Indian Health Service in the upper plains states. He said he can do some of the work at home in Washington State, which allows him to be with his wife and three young children.

Dr. Lin no longer sees patients. “I feel I have lost my confidence as a clinician,” he said. “I’m not sure why, but I find it hard to make quick judgments when taking care of patients.”

He said many doctors have told him about their own troubles with speaking out, but they did not want to come forward and talk about it because they feared more repercussions.
 

Do doctors who speak out have any rights?

Because TeamHealth, Dr. Lin’s actual employer, asserts he was never actually terminated, Dr. Lin has not been able to appeal his case internally in accordance with due process, an option that allows doctors to get a fair hearing and to appeal decisions against them.

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine pointed out this problem. “Dr. Lin, as a member of the medical staff, is entitled to full due process and a fair hearing from his peers on the medical staff,” the academy said in a statement supporting him.

The Joint Commission, the hospital accreditor, requires that hospitals provide due process to doctors before they can be terminated. However, Dr. Sullivan said employers often make physicians waive their due process rights in the employment contract. “The result is that the employer can terminate doctors for no reason,” he said.

In the 2013 survey of emergency physicians, 62% reported that their employers could terminate them without full due process.

Dr. Weiss, the Maryland MD-JD, said that when he advises doctors on their contracts, he generally tells them to cross out the waiver language. The applicant, he says, may also tell the employer that the waivers are considered unethical by many physician professional societies. In some cases, he said, the hospital will back down.
 

Conclusion

To maintain quality of care, it is essential that physicians feel free to speak out about issues that concern them. They can improve their chances of being heard by working directly with management and attending meetings, but in some cases, management may be unwilling to listen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Cigarette smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, anxiety disorders,^1-3 substance use disorders (SUDs),⁴ and other psychiatric disorders. Research suggests that compared with the general population, patients with SUDs consume more nicotine products and are more vulnerable to the effects of smoking.⁵ Despite the availability of effective treatments, many mental health professionals are reluctant to identify and treat tobacco use disorder,^6-8 or they prioritize other disorders over tobacco use. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illness.

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. It can be measured in routine clinical practice by collecting urinary, serum, or salivary specimens, and used to monitor psychiatric patients’ tobacco use. Monitoring cotinine levels is similar to using other biomarkers to assess medication adherence or identify illicit substance use. A growing body of evidence supports the utility of cotinine screening as a part of a comprehensive substance use disorder treatment plan,^5,9,10 especially for:

• patients who have comorbid conditions that can be exacerbated by tobacco use, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• patients who are pregnant^11,12
• patients who are less reliable in self-report or who require objective testing for validation.

Routine clinical screening of tobacco use is recommended for all patients and early detection may facilitate earlier treatment. Several FDA-approved medications are available for smoking cessation¹³; however, discussion of treatment options is beyond the scope of this review. In this article, we describe how cotinine is measured and analyzed, 3 case vignettes that illustrate its potential clinical utility, and limitations to its use as a biomarker of tobacco use.

Methods of measuring cotinine

Cigarette smoking is associated with the absorption of nicotine, which is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6 to 6 primary metabolites: cotinine, hydroxycotinine, norcotinine, nornicotine, cotinine oxide, and nicotine oxide.^14,15 Cotinine is the biomarker of choice for detecting use of tobacco/nicotine products due to its stability (it is not influenced by dietary or environmental factors), extended half-life (16 to 19 hours, compared with 2 hours for nicotine), and stable concentration throughout the day. Samples from saliva, urine, or blood can be analyzed through radioimmunoassay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and gas/liquid chromatography.¹⁶ The specificity of cotinine for tobacco use is excellent, except for persons who are taking medications that contain nicotine.¹⁷

An advantage of cotinine over other biomarkers for smoking (such as carbon monoxide in expired air) is that the optimal cut-off points for cotinine are relatively uninfluenced by the prevalence of smoking in the population. The optimal cut-off levels used to detect current tobacco use may vary based on the sample or test used (saliva, urine, or plasma) and certain patient-specific factors (Box 1^11,16,18-21). However, for plasma or saliva cotinine, 16 ng/mL is the generally accepted cut-off level for detecting current tobacco use. A urinary cotinine cut-off level of 50 ng/mL is likely appropriate for most circumstances.¹⁷ Users of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) have been found to have cotinine levels similar to those of cigarette smokers.²²

Box 1

Assessment of cotinine levels in saliva may be considered for outpatient monitoring due to its noninvasive nature, tolerability, and the ability to collect multiple samples over a limited period.²³ Saliva cotinine levels correlate closely with blood concentrations. Urine cotinine levels offer some advantage because concentrations are 6 times higher in urine than in blood or saliva. For this reason, urine cotinine is the most widely used biomarker in individuals who use tobacco due to its high sensitivity, specificity, reliability, and noninvasive collection.²³ By using a lower urinary cut-off of ≥2.47 ng/mL, ELISA kits detect the highest sensitivity and specificity, which is useful for monitoring daily tobacco use.²⁴ This cut-off value was associated with 100% sensitivity and specificity, and these numbers declined with increases in the cut-off threshold.²³

Impact of cigarette smoking

The following 3 clinical vignettes illustrate the impact of tobacco use disorder on patients, and how cotinine might help with their treatment.

Continue to: Vignette 1

Mr. D, age 44, has a history of schizophrenia and has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for the last 15 years. He was recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility after his symptoms were stabilized. During his hospitalization, Mr. D used a nicotine-replacement product to comply with the hospital’s smoke-free policy. Unfortunately, since discharge, Mr. D reports worsening auditory hallucinations despite adherence with his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime. Collateral information gathered from Mr. D’s mother confirms that he has been adherent with the discharge medication regimen; however, Mr. D has resumed smoking 1 pack of cigarettes daily. The treatment team suspects that his worsening psychosis is related to the decrease of blood clozapine level due to CYP induction by cigarette smoke.

Cotinine and smoking-related drug interactions

Vignette 1 illustrates the significant impact tobacco smoke can have on the effectiveness of a psychotropic medication. This is caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons induction of hepatic CYP1A2 isoenzymes. Clinicians should routinely screen patients for smoking status due to the potential for drug interactions. Common major CYP1A2 substrates include clozapine, olanzapine, duloxetine, and mirtazapine. Common minor CYP1A2 substrates include asenapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, perphenazine, ziprasidone, and zolpidem.²⁵ This case also highlights the potential advantage of collecting collateral information, and the utility of objective laboratory testing (such as cotinine monitoring) for optimal treatment because patient self-report can be unreliable and incomplete.^12,26

Vignette 2

Mr. B, age 34, has a history of cocaine use disorder and tobacco use disorder. He is referred to a treatment program and participates in a contingency management program for his substance use disorders. Biomarkers, including salivary cotinine, are used to assess Mr. B’s exposure to tobacco use. Mr. B and other participants in his program are eligible for prize draws if they are found to have samples that are negative for tobacco and other substances. There are other incentives in place for patients who show a reduced cotinine concentration.

Cotinine monitoring and contingency management

Clinicians can incorporate cotinine monitoring into existing SUD treatment. This is similar to the utilization of other biomarkers that are commonly used to identify recent illicit substance use or monitor adherence to treatment medications. For example, benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine, is frequently used to monitor abstinence from cocaine.²⁷ In addition, buprenorphine metabolites are used to monitor medication adherence and the possibility of diversion among patients being treated for opioid use disorder.²⁸ Smoking cessation may be associated with a decreased risk of relapse to illicit substances.²⁹

Treatments based on contingency management principles involve giving patients tangible rewards to reinforce desired (positive) behaviors. Smoking cessation can be confirmed by monitoring cotinine levels. Gayman et al⁹ found twice-weekly salivary testing was compatible with monitoring and promoting abstinence in a prize-based contingency management smoking cessation program. Most prior studies used urine cotinine measures to verify abstinence. Although highly reliable, urine samples require close monitoring to ensure sample validity, which can be a burden on staff and unpleasant for patients.⁹ It is also important to note that the rate of elimination of cotinine from saliva and urine are comparable. The half-life of cotinine is approximately 18 hours, and therefore the specificity of salivary test strips may be impacted during the first 4 to 5 days of abstinence. In the first few days of smoking cessation, a more intensive approach, such as quantifying urine cotinine levels and monitoring decline, may be appropriate.²³

Continue to: Vignette 3

Vignette 3

Ms. C, age 34 and pregnant, is admitted to an outpatient treatment program for alcohol use disorder. She also has generalized anxiety disorder and tobacco use disorder. In addition to attending group therapy sessions and self-reporting any recent alcohol consumption, Ms. C also undergoes alcohol breathalyzer tests and urine studies of alcohol metabolites to monitor abstinence from alcohol. She says that the regular laboratory screening for alcohol use gives her a sense of accountability and tangible evidence of change that positively impacts her treatment. When the treating psychiatrist recommends that Ms. C also consider addressing her tobacco use disorder, she asks if there is some way to include laboratory testing to monitor her smoking cessation.

Cotinine as a predictor of smoking status

Smoking abstinence rates during pregnancy are lower than that for other substances, and pregnant women may not be aware of the impact of smoking on fetal development.³⁰ Cotinine can be used to verify self-report of smoking status and severity.^10,31,32

Salivary cotinine tests are commercially available, relatively economical, and convenient to use when frequent monitoring is required.³² In general, based on established cut-off values that are unique to the specimen collected, the overall high specificity and sensitivity of salivary testing allows clinicians to predict smoker vs nonsmoker status with confidence. For example, a 2008 study reported a salivary cotinine cut-off level of 12 ng/mL for smokers.²¹ The sensitivity and specificity of this cut-off value for distinguishing cigarette smokers from never smokers were 96.7% and 96.9%, respectively.²¹

Additionally, some studies suggest that cotinine levels may be predictive of treatment outcomes and retention in SUD treatment programs.^33,34 One study of smoking cessation using nicotine replacement products found that compared with patients with lower baseline cotinine levels prior to treatment, patients with higher baseline cotinine plasma levels had lower smoking cessation success rates.³⁴

A few caveats

There are several limitations to quantitative measures of cotinine (Box 2^21,23). These include (but are not limited to) potential errors related to sample collection, storage, shipping, and analysis.²³ Compared with other methods, point-of-care cotinine measurement in saliva is noninvasive, simple, and requires less training to properly use.²³

Box 2

Continue to: Confirmation of smoking cessation...

Confirmation of smoking cessation can be monitored reliably within the clinical setting using cotinine monitoring. However, this is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines or consensus on how or when it should be used. The clinical feasibility of cotinine monitoring for psychiatric patients will depend on the cost of testing, methods used, amount of reimbursement for performing the tests, and how clinicians value such testing.³⁵

Bottom Line

Cotinine is a biomarker that can be used to detect tobacco use. Cotinine measurement can be used to monitor tobacco use and smoking cessation in psychiatric patients. Early detection and treatment of tobacco use disorder can improve patients’ health and reduce the incidence of acute and chronic illnesses. However, cotinine measurement is not a routine test, and there are no guidelines on how or when this test should be used.

Related Resources

• Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, et al. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):252.
• Tidey JW, Miller ME. Smoking cessation and reduction in people with chronic mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4065. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4065

Drug Brand Names

Asenapine • Saphris
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Clozapine • Clozaril
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Haloperidol • Haldol
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Against the backdrop of an increasing opioid use epidemic and a marked acceleration of prescription opioid–related deaths,^1,2 there has been an impetus to explore the usefulness of alternative and co-analgesic agents to assist patients with chronic pain. Preclinical studies employing animal-based models of human pain syndromes have demonstrated that cannabis and chemicals derived from cannabis extracts may mitigate several pain conditions.³

Because there are significant comorbidities between psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, psychiatrists are likely to care for patients with chronic pain. As the availability of and interest in cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) increases, psychiatrists will need to be apprised of the utility, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions of these agents.

The endocannabinoid system and cannabis receptors

The endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system is abundantly present within the peripheral and central nervous systems. The first identified, and best studied, endocannabinoids are N-arachidonoyl-ethanolamine (AEA; anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG).⁴ Unlike typical neurotransmitters, AEA and 2-AG are not stored within vesicles within presynaptic neuron axons. Instead, they are lipophilic molecules produced on demand, synthesized from phospholipids (ie, arachidonic acid derivatives) at the membranes of post-synaptic neurons, and released into the synapse directly.⁵

Acting as retrograde messengers, the endocannabinoids traverse the synapse, binding to receptors located on the axons of the presynaptic neuron. Two receptors—CB1 and CB2—have been most extensively studied and characterized.^6,7 These receptors couple to Gi/o-proteins to inhibit adenylate cyclase, decreasing Ca2+ conductance and increasing K+ conductance.⁸ Once activated, cannabinoid receptors modulate neurotransmitter release from presynaptic axon terminals. Evidence points to a similar retrograde signaling between neurons and glial cells. Shortly after receptor activation, the endocannabinoids are deactivated by the actions of a transporter mechanism and enzyme degradation.^9,10

The endocannabinoid system and pain transmission

Cannabinoid receptors are present in pain transmission circuits spanning from the peripheral sensory nerve endings (from which pain signals originate) to the spinal cord and supraspinal regions within the brain.^11-14 CB1 receptors are abundantly present within the CNS, including regions involved in pain transmission. Binding to CB1 receptors, endocannabinoids modulate neurotransmission that impacts pain transmission centrally. Endocannabinoids can also indirectly modulate opiate and N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors involved in pain relay and transmission.¹⁵

By contrast, CB2 receptors are predominantly localized to peripheral tissues and immune cells, although there has been some discovery of their presence within the CNS (eg, on microglia). Endocannabinoid activation of CB2 receptors is thought to modulate the activity of peripheral afferent pain fibers and immune-mediated neuro­inflammatory processes—such as inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis and mast cell degranulation—that can precipitate and maintain chronic pain states.^16-18

Evidence garnered from preclinical (animal) studies points to the role of the endocannabinoid system in modulating normal pain transmission (see Manzanares et al³ for details). These studies offer a putative basis for understanding how exogenous cannabinoid congeners might serve to ameliorate pain transmission in pathophysiologic states, including chronic pain.

Continue to: Cannabinoid-based medications

Marijuana contains multiple components (cannabinoids). The most extensively studied are delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Because it predominantly binds CB1 receptors centrally, THC is the major psychoactive component of cannabis; it promotes sleep and appetite, influences anxiety, and produces the “high” associated with cannabis use. By contrast, CBD weakly binds CB1 and thus exerts minimal or no psycho­active effects.¹⁹

Cannabinoid absorption, metabolism, bioavailability, and clinical effects vary depending on the formulation and method of administration (Table 1).^20-22 THC and CBD content and potency in inhaled cannabis can vary significantly depending on the strains of the cannabis plant and manner of cultivation.²³ To standardize approaches for administering cannabinoids in clinical trials and for clinical use, researchers have developed pharmaceutical analogs that contain extracted chemicals or synthetic chemicals similar to THC and/or CBD.

In this article, CBM refers to smoked/vaporized herbal cannabis as well as pharmaceutical cannabis analogs. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of CBM commonly used in studies investigating their use for managing pain conditions.

CBM for chronic pain

The literature base examining the role of CBM for managing chronic nonmalignant and malignant pain of varying etiologies is rapidly expanding. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have focused on inhaled/smoked products and related cannabinoid medications, some of which are FDA-approved (Table 2).

A multitude of other cannabinoid-based products are currently commercially available to consumers, including tincture and oil-based products; over-the-counter CBD products; and several other formulations of CBM (eg, edible and suppository products). Because such products are not standardized or quality-controlled,²⁴ RCTs have not assessed their efficacy for mitigating pain. Consequently, the findings summarized in this article do not address the utility of these agents.

Continue to: CBM for non-cancer pain

Neuropathic pain. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the pain-mitigating effects of various CBM, including inhaled cannabis, synthetic THC, plant-extracted CBD, and a THC/CBD spray. Studies have shown that inhaled/vaporized cannabis can produce short-term pain reduction in patients with chronic neuropathic pain of diverse etiologies, including diabetes mellitus-, HIV-, trauma-, and medication-induced neuropathies.^22,25,26 Similar beneficial effects have been observed with the use of cannabis analogues (eg, nabiximols).^25,26-29

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have determined that most of these RCTs were of low-to-moderate quality.^26,30 Meta-analyses have revealed divergent and conflicting results because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select RCTs for analysis and differences in the standards with which the quality of evidence were determined.^25,30

Overall, the benefit of CBM for mitigating neuropathic pain is promising, but the effectiveness may not be robust.^30,31 Several noteworthy caveats limit the interpretation of the results of these RCTs:

• due to the small sample sizes and brief durations of study, questions remain regarding the extent to which effects are generalizable, whether the benefits are sustained, and whether adverse effects emerge over time with continued use
• most RCTs evaluated inhaled (herbal) cannabis and nabiximols; there is little data on the effectiveness of other CBM formulations^25,26,30
• the pain-mitigating effects of CBM were usually compared with those of placebo; the comparative efficacy against agents commonly used to treat neuropathic pain remains largely unexamined 

• these RCTs typically compared mean pain severity score differences between cannabis-treated and placebo groups using standard subjective rating scales of pain intensity, such as the Numerical Rating Scale or Visual Analogue Scale. Customarily, the pain literature has used a 30% or 50% reduction in pain severity from baseline as an indicator of significant clinical improvement.^32,33 The RCTs of CBM for neuropathic pain rarely used this standard, which makes it unclear whether CBM results in clinically significant pain reductions³⁰
• indirect measures of effectiveness (ie, whether using CBM reduces the need for opioids or other analgesics to manage pain) were seldom reported in these RCTs.

Due to these limitations, clinical guidelines and systematic reviews consider CBM as a third- or fourth-line therapy for patients experiencing chronic neuropathic pain for whom conventional agents such as anticonvulsants and antidepressants have failed.^34,35

Spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS). Several RCTs have assessed the use of CBM for MS-related spasticity, although few were deemed to be high quality. Nabiximols and synthetic THC were effective in managing spasticity and reducing pain severity associated with muscle spasms.³⁶ Generally, investigations revealed that CBM were associated with improvements in subjective measures of spasticity, but these were not born out in clinical, objective measures.^26,37 The efficacy of smoked cannabis was uncertain.³⁷ The existing literature on CBM for MS-related spasticity does not address dosing, duration of effects, tolerability, or comparative effectiveness against conventional anti-spasm medications.^36,37

Continue to: Other chronic pain conditions

Other chronic pain conditions. CBM have also been studied for their usefulness in several other noncancer chronic conditions, including Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, and other rheumatologic pain conditions.^22,31,38-40 However, a solid foundation of empirical work to inform their utility for managing pain in these conditions is lacking.

CBM for cancer pain

Anecdotal evidence suggests that inhaled cannabis has promising pain-mitigating effects in patients with advanced cancer.^41-43 There is a dearth of high-quality RCTs assessing the utility of CBM in patients with cancer pain.^43-45 The types of CBM used and dosing strategies varied across RCTs, which makes it difficult to infer how best to treat patients with cancer pain. The agents studied included nabiximols, THC spray, and synthetic THC capsules.^43-45 Although some studies have demonstrated that synthetic THC and nabiximols have potential for reducing subjective pain ratings compared with placebo,^46,47 these results were inconsistent.^46,48 Oromucosal nabiximols did not appear to confer any additional analgesic benefit in patients who were already prescribed opioids.^31,45

The benefit of CBM for mitigating cancer pain is promising, but it remains difficult to know how to position the use of CBM in managing cancer pain. Limitations in the cancer literature include:

• the RCTs addressing CBM use for cancer pain were often brief, which raises questions about the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of these agents
• tolerability and dosing limits encountered due to adverse effects were seldom reported^43,45
• the types of cancer pain that patients had were often quite diverse. The small sample sizes and the heterogeneity of conditions included in these RCTs limit the ability to determine whether pain-mitigating effects might vary according to type of cancer-related pain.^31,45

Despite these limitations, some clinical guidelines and systematic reviews have suggested that CBM have some role in addressing refractory malignant pain conditions.⁴⁹

Psychiatric considerations related to CBM

As of November 2020, 36 states had legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, typically for painful conditions, despite the fact that empirical evidence to support their efficacy is mixed.⁵⁰ In light of recent changes in both the legal and popular attitudes regarding cannabis, the implications of legalizing CBM remains to be seen. For example, some research suggests that adults with pain are vulnerable to frequent nonmedical cannabis use and/or cannabis use disorder.⁵¹ Although well-intended, the legalization of CBM use might represent society’s next misstep in the quest to address the suffering of patients with chronic pain. Some evidence shows that cannabis use and cannabis use disorders increase in states that have legalized medical marijuana.^52,53 Psychiatrists will be on the front lines of addressing any potential consequences arising from the use of CBM for treating pain.

Continue to: Psychiatric disorders and CBM

Psychiatric disorders and CBM. The psychological impact of CBM use among patients enduring chronic pain can include sedation, cognitive/attention disturbance, and fatigue. These adverse effects can limit the utility of such agents.^22,29,45

Contraindications for CBM use, and conditions for which CBM ought to be used with caution, are listed in Table 3^54,55.The safety of CBM, particularly in patients with chronic pain and psychiatric disorders, has not been examined. Patients with psychiatric disorders may be poor candidates for medical cannabis. Epidemiologic data suggest that recreational cannabis use is positively associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with psychotic spectrum disorders, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, including panic disorder.⁵⁶ Psychotic reactions have also been associated with CBM (dronabinol and nabilone).⁵⁷ Cannabis use also has been associated with an earlier onset of, and lower remission rates of, symptoms associated with bipolar disorder.^58,59 Consequently, patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk for developing any of the aforementioned conditions may not be suitable candidates for CBM. If CBM are used, patients should be closely monitored for the emergence/exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms. The frequency and extent of follow-up is not clear, however. Because of its reduced propensity to produce psychoactive effects, CBD may be safer than THC for managing pain in individuals who have or are vulnerable to developing psychiatric disorders.

There is a lack of evidence to support the use of CBM for treating primary depressive disorders, general anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or psychosis.^60,61 Very low-quality evidence suggests that CBM could lead to a small improvement in anxiety among individuals with noncancer pain and MS.⁶⁰ However, interpreting causality is complicated. It is plausible that, for some patients, subjective improvement in pain severity may be related to reduced anxiety.⁶² Conversely, it is equally plausible that reductions in emotional distress may reduce the propensity to attend to, and thus magnify, pain severity. In the latter case, the indirect impact of reducing pain by modifying emotional distress can be impacted by the type and dose of CBM used. For example, low concentrations of THC produce anxiolytic effects, but high concentrations may be anxiety-provoking.^63,64

Several potential pharmacokinetic drug interactions may arise between herbal cannabis or CBM and other medications (Table 4^65,66). THC and CBD are both metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and 3A4.^65,66 In addition, THC is also metabolized by CYP2C9. Medications that inhibit or induce these enzymes can increase or decrease the bioavailability of THC and CBD.⁶⁷

Simultaneously, cannabinoids can impact the bioavailability of co-prescribed medications (Table 5^66,68). Although such CYP enzyme interactions remain a theoretical possibility, it is uncertain whether significant perturbations in plasma concentrations (and clinical effects) have been encountered with prescription medications when co-administered with CBM.⁶⁹ Nonetheless, patients receiving CBM should be closely monitored for their response to prescribed medications.⁷⁰

Continue to: Potential CYP enzyme interactions...

Potential CYP enzyme interactions aside, clinicians need to consider the additive effects that may occur when CBM are combined with sympathomimetic agents (eg, tachycardia, hypertension); CNS depressants such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and opioids (eg, drowsiness, ataxia); or anticholinergics (eg, tachycardia, confusion).⁷¹ Inhaled herbal cannabis contains mutagens and can result in lung damage, exacerbations of chronic bronchitis, and certain types of cancer.^54,72 Co-prescribing benzodiazepines may be contraindicated in light of their effects on respiratory rate and effort.

The THC contained in CBM produces hormonal effects (ie, significantly increases plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin and decreases peptide YY levels)⁷³ that affect appetite and can produce weight gain. This may be problematic for patients receiving psychoactive medications associated with increased risk of weight gain and dyslipidemia. Because of the association between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents, patients whose jobs require them to drive or operate industrial equipment may not be ideal candidates for CBM, especially if such patients also consume alcohol or are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or sedative hypnotics.⁷⁴ Lastly, due to their lipophilicity, cannabinoids cross the placental barrier and can be found in breast milk⁷⁵ and therefore can affect pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopment.

Bottom Line

The popularity of cannabinoid-based medications (CBM) for the treatment of chronic pain conditions is growing, but the interest in their use may be outpacing the evidence supporting their analgesic benefits. High-quality, well-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to decipher whether, and to what extent, these agents can be positioned in chronic pain management. Because psychiatrists are likely to encounter patients considering, or receiving, CBM, they must be aware of the potential benefits, risks, and adverse effects of such treatments.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG. Cannabis-derived compounds: what you need to know. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(10):64-65. doi:10.12788/ cp.0050
• Gupta S, Phalen T, Gupta S. Medical marijuana: do the benefits outweigh the risks? Current Psychiatry. 2018; 17(1):34-41.

Drug Brand Names

Ajulemic acid • Anabasum
Alprazolam • Xanax
Amitriptyline • Elavil
Aripiprazole • Abilify, Abilify Maintena
Buspirone • BuSpar
Cannabidiol • Epidiolex
Carbamazepine • Tegretol, Equetro
Cimetidine • Tagamet HB
Citalopram • Celexa
Clopidogrel • Plavix
Clozapine • Clozaril
Cyclosporine • Neoral, Sandimmune
Dronabinol • Marinol, Syndros
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Haloperidol • Haldol
Imipramine • Tofranil
Ketoconazole • Nizoral AD
Losartan • Cozaar
Midazolam • Versed
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nabilone • Cesamet
Nabiximols • Sativex
Nefazodone • Serzone
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Phenobarbital • Solfoton
Phenytoin • Dilantin
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Rifampin • Rifadin
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tamoxifen • Nolvadex
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakote, Depakene
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Verapamil • Verelan
Zolpidem • Ambien

Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.¹ A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.¹ During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.^1,2

In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.

Avoid these common assumptions

Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.

Conduct a focused interview

Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include²:

• previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
• lack of partner or social support
• history of abuse or domestic violence
• unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
• adverse events in life and high perceived stress
• present/past pregnancy complications
• pregnancy loss.

Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.³

Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?³

Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?³

Continue to: Given the high prevalence...

Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).⁴ Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?^4-6

Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?³

Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.⁷ Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.

Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.⁷ On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.^5,7

Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.

Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.¹ A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.¹ During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.^1,2

In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.

Avoid these common assumptions

Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.

Conduct a focused interview

Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include²:

• previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
• lack of partner or social support
• history of abuse or domestic violence
• unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
• adverse events in life and high perceived stress
• present/past pregnancy complications
• pregnancy loss.

Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.³

Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?³

Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?³

Continue to: Given the high prevalence...

Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).⁴ Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?^4-6

Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?³

Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.⁷ Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.

Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.⁷ On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.^5,7

Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.

Emerging data demonstrate that untreated perinatal anxiety is associated with negative outcomes, including an increased risk for suicide.¹ A 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis that included 102 studies with a total of 221,974 women from 34 countries found that the prevalence of self-reported anxiety symptoms and any anxiety disorder was 22.9% and 15.2%, respectively, across the 3 trimesters.¹ During pregnancy, anxiety disorders (eg, generalized anxiety disorder) and anxiety-related disorders (eg, obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD] and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) can present as new illnesses or as a reoccurrence of an existing illness. Patients with pre-existing OCD may notice that the nature of their obsessions is changing. Women with pre-existing PTSD may have their symptoms triggered by pregnancy or delivery or may develop PTSD as a result of a traumatic delivery. Anxiety is frequently comorbid with depression, and high anxiety during pregnancy is one of the strongest risk factors for depression.^1,2

In light of this data, awareness and recognition of perinatal anxiety is critical. In this article, we describe how to accurately assess perinatal anxiety by avoiding assumptions and asking key questions during the clinical interview.

Avoid these common assumptions

Assessment begins with avoiding assumptions typically associated with maternal mental health. One common assumption is that pregnancy is a joyous occasion for all women. Pregnancy can be a stressful time that has its own unique difficulties, including the potential to develop or have a relapse of a mental illness. Another assumption is that the only concern is “postpartum depression.” In actuality, a significant percentage of women will experience depression during their pregnancy (not just in the postpartum period), and many other psychiatric illnesses are common during the perinatal period, including anxiety disorders.

Conduct a focused interview

Risk factors associated with antenatal anxiety include²:

• previous history of mental illness (particularly a history of anxiety and depression and a history of psychiatric treatment)
• lack of partner or social support
• history of abuse or domestic violence
• unplanned or unwanted pregnancy
• adverse events in life and high perceived stress
• present/past pregnancy complications
• pregnancy loss.

Symptoms of anxiety. The presence of anxiety or worrying does not necessarily mean a mother has an anxiety disorder. Using the DSM-5 as a guide, we should use the questions outlined in the following sections to inquire about all of the symptoms related to a particular illness, the pervasiveness of these symptoms, and to what extent these symptoms impair a woman’s ability to function and carry out her usual activities.³

Past psychiatric history. Ask your patient the following: Have you previously experienced anxiety and/or depressive symptoms? Were those symptoms limited only to times when you were pregnant or postpartum? Were your symptoms severe enough to disrupt your life (job, school, relationships, ability to complete daily tasks)? What treatments were effective for your symptoms? What treatments were ineffective?³

Social factors. Learn more about your patient’s support systems by asking: Who do you consider to be part of your social support? How is your relationship with your social support? Are there challenges in your relationship with your friends, family, or partner? If yes, what are those challenges? Are there other children in the home, and do you have support for them? Is your home environment safe? Do you feel that you have what you need for the baby? What stressors are you currently experiencing? Do you attend support groups for expectant mothers? Are you engaged in perinatal care?³

Continue to: Given the high prevalence...

Given the high prevalence of interpersonal violence in women of reproductive age, all patients should be screened for this. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women recommends screening for interpersonal violence at the first visit during the perinatal period, during each trimester, and at the postpartum visit (at minimum).⁴ Potential screening questions include (but are not limited to): Have you and/or your children ever been threatened by or felt afraid of your partner? When you argue with your partner, do either of you get physical? Has your partner ever physically hurt you (eg, hit, choked)? Do you feel safe at home? Do you have a safe place to go with resources you and your children will need in case of an emergency?^4-6

Feelings toward pregnancy, past/current pregnancy complications, and pregnancy loss. Ask your patient: Was this pregnancy planned? How do you feel about your pregnancy? How do you see yourself as a mother? Do you currently have pregnancy complications and/or have had them in the past, and, if so, what are/were they? Have you lost a pregnancy? If so, what was that like? Do you have fears related to childbirth, and, if so, what are they?³

Intrusive thoughts about harming the baby. Intrusive thoughts are common in postpartum women with anxiety disorders, including OCD.⁷ Merely asking patients if they’ve had thoughts of harming their baby is incomplete and insufficient to assess for intrusive thoughts. This question does not distinguish between intrusive thoughts and homicidal ideation; this distinction is absolutely necessary given the difference in potential risk to the infant.

Intrusive thoughts are generally associated with a low risk of mothers acting on their thoughts. These thoughts are typically ego dystonic and, in the most severe form, can be distressing to an extent that they cause behavioral changes, such as avoiding bathing the infant, avoiding diaper changes, avoiding knives, or separating themselves from the infant.⁷ On the contrary, having homicidal ideation carries a higher risk for harm to the infant. Homicidal ideation may be seen in patients with co-occurring psychosis, poor reality testing, and delusions.^5,7

Questions such as “Do you worry about harm coming to your baby?” “Do you worry about you causing harm to your baby?” and “Have you had an upsetting thought about harming your baby?” are more likely to reveal intrusive thoughts and prompt further exploration. Statements such as “Some people tell me that they have distressing thoughts about harm coming to their baby” can gently open the door to a having a dialogue about such thoughts. This dialogue is significantly important in making informed assessments as we develop comprehensive treatment plans.

Being a physician gives me great privilege. However, this privilege did not start the moment I donned the white coat, but when I was born Asian American, to parents who hold advanced education degrees. It grew when our family moved to a White neighborhood and I was accepted into an elite college. For medical school and residency, I chose an academic program embedded in an urban setting that serves underprivileged minority communities. I entered psychiatry to facilitate healing. Yet as I read the headlines about people of color who had died at the hands of law enforcement, I found myself feeling overwhelmingly hopeless and numb.

In these individuals, I saw people who looked and lived just like the patients I chose to serve. But during this time, I did not see myself as the healer, but part of the system that brought pain and distress. As an Asian American, I identified with Tou Thao—the Asian American police officer involved in George Floyd’s death. In the medical community with which I identified, I found that ever-rising cases of COVID-19 were disproportionately affecting lower-income minority communities. In a polarizing world, I felt my Asian American identity prevented me from experiencing the pain and suffering Black communities faced. This was not my fight, and if it was, I was more immersed in the side that brought trauma to my patients. From a purely rational perspective, I had no right to feel sad. Intellectually, I felt unqualified to share in their pain, yet here I was, crying in my room.

An evolving transformation

As much as I wanted to take a break, training did not stop. A transformation occurred from an emerging awareness of the unique environment within which I was training and the intersection of who I knew myself to be. Serving in an urban program, I was given the opportunity for candid conversations with health professionals of color. I was humbled when Black colleagues proactively reached out to educate me about the historical context of these events and help me process them. I asked hard questions of my fellow residents who were Black, and listened to their answers and personal stories, which was difficult.

With my patients, I began to listen more intently and think about the systemic issues I had previously written off. One patient missed their appointment because public transportation was closed due to COVID-19. Another patient who was homeless was helped immensely by assistance with housing when he could no longer sleep at his place of residence. Really listening to him revealed that his street had become a common route for protests. With my therapy patient who experienced panic attacks listening to the news, I simply sat and grieved with them. I chose these interactions not because I was uniquely qualified, intelligent, or had any ability to change the trajectory of our country, but because they grew from me simply working in the context I chose and seeking the relationships I naturally sought.

How I define myself

As doctors, we accept the burden of caring for society’s ailments with the ultimate hope of celebrating triumph over the adversity of psychiatric illness. However, superseding our profession is the social system in which we live. I am part of a system that has historically caused trauma to some while benefitting others. Thus, between the calling of my practice and the country I practice in, I found a divergence. Once I accepted the truth of this system and the very personal way it affects me, my colleagues, and patients I serve, I was able to internally reconcile and rediscover hope. While I cannot change my experiences, advantages, or privilege, these facts do not change the reality that I am a citizen of the globe and human first. This realization is the silver lining of these perilous times; training among people of color who graciously included me in their experiences, and my willingness to listen and self-reflect. I now choose to define myself by what makes me similar to my patients instead of what isolates me from them. The tangible results of this deliberate step toward authenticity are renewed inspiration and joy.

For those of you who may have found yourself with no “ethnic home team” (or a desire for a new one), I leave you with this simple charge: Let your emotional reactions guide you to truth, and challenge yourself to process them with someone who doesn’t look like you. Leave your title at the door and embrace humility. You might be pleasantly surprised at the human you find when you look in the mirror.

Being a physician gives me great privilege. However, this privilege did not start the moment I donned the white coat, but when I was born Asian American, to parents who hold advanced education degrees. It grew when our family moved to a White neighborhood and I was accepted into an elite college. For medical school and residency, I chose an academic program embedded in an urban setting that serves underprivileged minority communities. I entered psychiatry to facilitate healing. Yet as I read the headlines about people of color who had died at the hands of law enforcement, I found myself feeling overwhelmingly hopeless and numb.

In these individuals, I saw people who looked and lived just like the patients I chose to serve. But during this time, I did not see myself as the healer, but part of the system that brought pain and distress. As an Asian American, I identified with Tou Thao—the Asian American police officer involved in George Floyd’s death. In the medical community with which I identified, I found that ever-rising cases of COVID-19 were disproportionately affecting lower-income minority communities. In a polarizing world, I felt my Asian American identity prevented me from experiencing the pain and suffering Black communities faced. This was not my fight, and if it was, I was more immersed in the side that brought trauma to my patients. From a purely rational perspective, I had no right to feel sad. Intellectually, I felt unqualified to share in their pain, yet here I was, crying in my room.

An evolving transformation

As much as I wanted to take a break, training did not stop. A transformation occurred from an emerging awareness of the unique environment within which I was training and the intersection of who I knew myself to be. Serving in an urban program, I was given the opportunity for candid conversations with health professionals of color. I was humbled when Black colleagues proactively reached out to educate me about the historical context of these events and help me process them. I asked hard questions of my fellow residents who were Black, and listened to their answers and personal stories, which was difficult.

With my patients, I began to listen more intently and think about the systemic issues I had previously written off. One patient missed their appointment because public transportation was closed due to COVID-19. Another patient who was homeless was helped immensely by assistance with housing when he could no longer sleep at his place of residence. Really listening to him revealed that his street had become a common route for protests. With my therapy patient who experienced panic attacks listening to the news, I simply sat and grieved with them. I chose these interactions not because I was uniquely qualified, intelligent, or had any ability to change the trajectory of our country, but because they grew from me simply working in the context I chose and seeking the relationships I naturally sought.

How I define myself

As doctors, we accept the burden of caring for society’s ailments with the ultimate hope of celebrating triumph over the adversity of psychiatric illness. However, superseding our profession is the social system in which we live. I am part of a system that has historically caused trauma to some while benefitting others. Thus, between the calling of my practice and the country I practice in, I found a divergence. Once I accepted the truth of this system and the very personal way it affects me, my colleagues, and patients I serve, I was able to internally reconcile and rediscover hope. While I cannot change my experiences, advantages, or privilege, these facts do not change the reality that I am a citizen of the globe and human first. This realization is the silver lining of these perilous times; training among people of color who graciously included me in their experiences, and my willingness to listen and self-reflect. I now choose to define myself by what makes me similar to my patients instead of what isolates me from them. The tangible results of this deliberate step toward authenticity are renewed inspiration and joy.

For those of you who may have found yourself with no “ethnic home team” (or a desire for a new one), I leave you with this simple charge: Let your emotional reactions guide you to truth, and challenge yourself to process them with someone who doesn’t look like you. Leave your title at the door and embrace humility. You might be pleasantly surprised at the human you find when you look in the mirror.

Being a physician gives me great privilege. However, this privilege did not start the moment I donned the white coat, but when I was born Asian American, to parents who hold advanced education degrees. It grew when our family moved to a White neighborhood and I was accepted into an elite college. For medical school and residency, I chose an academic program embedded in an urban setting that serves underprivileged minority communities. I entered psychiatry to facilitate healing. Yet as I read the headlines about people of color who had died at the hands of law enforcement, I found myself feeling overwhelmingly hopeless and numb.

In these individuals, I saw people who looked and lived just like the patients I chose to serve. But during this time, I did not see myself as the healer, but part of the system that brought pain and distress. As an Asian American, I identified with Tou Thao—the Asian American police officer involved in George Floyd’s death. In the medical community with which I identified, I found that ever-rising cases of COVID-19 were disproportionately affecting lower-income minority communities. In a polarizing world, I felt my Asian American identity prevented me from experiencing the pain and suffering Black communities faced. This was not my fight, and if it was, I was more immersed in the side that brought trauma to my patients. From a purely rational perspective, I had no right to feel sad. Intellectually, I felt unqualified to share in their pain, yet here I was, crying in my room.

An evolving transformation

As much as I wanted to take a break, training did not stop. A transformation occurred from an emerging awareness of the unique environment within which I was training and the intersection of who I knew myself to be. Serving in an urban program, I was given the opportunity for candid conversations with health professionals of color. I was humbled when Black colleagues proactively reached out to educate me about the historical context of these events and help me process them. I asked hard questions of my fellow residents who were Black, and listened to their answers and personal stories, which was difficult.

With my patients, I began to listen more intently and think about the systemic issues I had previously written off. One patient missed their appointment because public transportation was closed due to COVID-19. Another patient who was homeless was helped immensely by assistance with housing when he could no longer sleep at his place of residence. Really listening to him revealed that his street had become a common route for protests. With my therapy patient who experienced panic attacks listening to the news, I simply sat and grieved with them. I chose these interactions not because I was uniquely qualified, intelligent, or had any ability to change the trajectory of our country, but because they grew from me simply working in the context I chose and seeking the relationships I naturally sought.

How I define myself

As doctors, we accept the burden of caring for society’s ailments with the ultimate hope of celebrating triumph over the adversity of psychiatric illness. However, superseding our profession is the social system in which we live. I am part of a system that has historically caused trauma to some while benefitting others. Thus, between the calling of my practice and the country I practice in, I found a divergence. Once I accepted the truth of this system and the very personal way it affects me, my colleagues, and patients I serve, I was able to internally reconcile and rediscover hope. While I cannot change my experiences, advantages, or privilege, these facts do not change the reality that I am a citizen of the globe and human first. This realization is the silver lining of these perilous times; training among people of color who graciously included me in their experiences, and my willingness to listen and self-reflect. I now choose to define myself by what makes me similar to my patients instead of what isolates me from them. The tangible results of this deliberate step toward authenticity are renewed inspiration and joy.

For those of you who may have found yourself with no “ethnic home team” (or a desire for a new one), I leave you with this simple charge: Let your emotional reactions guide you to truth, and challenge yourself to process them with someone who doesn’t look like you. Leave your title at the door and embrace humility. You might be pleasantly surprised at the human you find when you look in the mirror.

The term evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been derided by some as “cookbook medicine.” To others, EBM conjures up the efforts of describing interventions in terms of comparative effectiveness, drowning us in a deluge of “evidence-based” publications. The moniker has also been hijacked by companies to name their Health Economics and Outcomes research divisions. The spirit behind EBM is getting lost. EBM is not just about the evidence; it is about how we use it.¹

In this commentary, we describe the concept of EBM and discuss teaching EBM to medical students and residents, its role in continuing medical education, and how it may be applied to practice, using a case scenario as a guide.

What is evidence-based medicine?

Sackett et al² summed it best in an editorial published in the BMJ in 1996, where he emphasized decision-making in the care of individual patients. When making clinical decisions, using the best evidence available makes sense, but so does integrating individual clinical expertise and considering the individual patient’s preferences. Sackett et al² warns about practice becoming tyrannized by evidence: “even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient.” Clearly, EBM is not cookbook medicine.

Figure 1³ illustrates EBM as the confluence of clinical judgment, relevant scientific evidence, and patients’ values and preferences. The results from a clinical trial are only one part of the equation. As practitioners, we have the advantage of detailed knowledge about the patient, and our decisions are not “one size fits all.” Prior information about the patient dictates how we apply the evidence that supports potential interventions.

The concept of EBM was born out of necessity to bring scientific principles into the heart of medicine. As outlined by Sackett,⁴ the practice of EBM is a process of lifelong, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues. Through EBM, we:

• convert these information needs into answerable questions
• track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer questions (whether from clinical examination, diagnostic laboratory results, research evidence, or other sources)
• critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (clinical applicability)
• integrate this appraisal with our clinical expertise and apply it in practice
• evaluate our performance.

Over the years, the original aim of EBM as a self-directed method for clinicians to practice high-quality medicine was morphed by some into a tool of enforced standardization and a boilerplate approach to managing costs across systems of care. As a result, the term EBM has been criticized because of:

• its reliance on empiricism
• a narrow definition of evidence
• a lack of evidence of efficacy
• its limited usefulness for individual patients
• threats to the autonomy of the doctor-patient relationship.

These 5 categories are associated with severe drawbacks when used for individual patient care.⁵ In addition to problems with applying standardized population research to a specific patient with a specific set of symptoms, medications, genetic variations, and unique environment, it can take years for clinicians to change their practices to incorporate new information.⁶

Continue to: Evidence that is too narrow...

Evidence that is too narrow in scope may not be useful. Single-molecule pharmaceutical clinical trials have erroneously become a synonym of EBM. Such studies do not reflect complex, real-life situations. Based on such studies, FDA product labeling can be inadequate in its guidance, particularly when faced with complex comorbidities. The standard comparison of active treatment to placebo is also seen as EBM, narrowing its scope and deflecting from clinical medicine when physicians measure one treatment’s success against another vs measuring real treatments against shams. Real-life treatment choice is frequently based on considering adverse effects as important to consider as therapeutic efficacy; however, this concept is outside of the common (mis)understanding of EBM.

Conflicting and ever-changing data and the push to replace clinical thinking with general dogmas trivializes medical practice and endangers treatment outcomes. This would not happen to the extent we see now if EBM was again seen as a guide and general direction rather than a blanket, distorted requirement to follow rigid recommendations for specific patients.

Insurance companies have driven a change in the understanding of EBM by using the FDA label as an excuse to deny, delay, and/or refuse to pay for treatments that are not explicitly and narrowly on-label. Dependence on on-label treatments is even more challenging in specialty medicine because primary care clinicians generally have tried the conventional approaches before referring patients to a specialist. However, insurance denials rarely differentiate between practice settings.

Medicolegal issues have cemented the present situation when clinically valid “off-label” treatments may be a reasonable consideration for patients but can place health care practitioners in jeopardy. The distorted EBM doctrine has become a justification for legal actions against clinicians who practice individualized medicine.

Concision bias (selectively focusing on information, losing nuance) and selection bias (patients in clinical trials who do not reflect real-life patients) have become an impediment to progress and EBM as originally intended.

Continue to: Training medical students and residents

Although there is some variation in how EBM is taught to medical students and residents,^7,8 the expectation is that such education occurs. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for a residency program state that “the program must advance residents’ knowledge and practice of the scholarly approach to evidence-based patient care.”⁹ The topic has been part of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Model Psychopharmacology Curriculum, but only in an optional lecture.¹⁰ The formal teaching of EBM includes how to find relevant biomedical publications for the clinical issues at hand, understand the different hierarchies of evidence, interpret results in terms of effect size, and apply this knowledge in the care of patients. This 5-step process is illustrated in Figure 2⁸. See Related Resources for 3 books that provide a scholarly yet clinically relevant approach to EBM.

Continuing medical education

Most Current Psychiatry readers have been out of residency for some time and have not necessarily been exposed to the philosophy and tools of EBM. It may be easier to simply jump in and learn about effect sizes and then use information already curated and apply this knowledge. A good starting point is a recap^11,12 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) for schizophrenia that answers the questions: “How large is the effect being measured?” “Is it clinically important?” and “How are we dealing with a result that may be statistically significant but irrelevant for day-to-day patient care?” Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can help explain this by allowing one to judge the clinical significance of a statistically significant result.¹³

Practical applications

There are common clinical scenarios where evidence is ignored, or where it is overvalued. For example, the treatment of bipolar depression can be made worse with the use of antidepressants.¹⁴ Does this mean that antidepressants should never be used? What about patient history and preference? What if the approved agents fail to relieve symptoms or are not well tolerated? Available FDA-approved choices may not always be suitable.¹⁵ The Table illustrates some of these scenarios.

The term evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been derided by some as “cookbook medicine.” To others, EBM conjures up the efforts of describing interventions in terms of comparative effectiveness, drowning us in a deluge of “evidence-based” publications. The moniker has also been hijacked by companies to name their Health Economics and Outcomes research divisions. The spirit behind EBM is getting lost. EBM is not just about the evidence; it is about how we use it.¹

In this commentary, we describe the concept of EBM and discuss teaching EBM to medical students and residents, its role in continuing medical education, and how it may be applied to practice, using a case scenario as a guide.

What is evidence-based medicine?

Sackett et al² summed it best in an editorial published in the BMJ in 1996, where he emphasized decision-making in the care of individual patients. When making clinical decisions, using the best evidence available makes sense, but so does integrating individual clinical expertise and considering the individual patient’s preferences. Sackett et al² warns about practice becoming tyrannized by evidence: “even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient.” Clearly, EBM is not cookbook medicine.

Figure 1³ illustrates EBM as the confluence of clinical judgment, relevant scientific evidence, and patients’ values and preferences. The results from a clinical trial are only one part of the equation. As practitioners, we have the advantage of detailed knowledge about the patient, and our decisions are not “one size fits all.” Prior information about the patient dictates how we apply the evidence that supports potential interventions.

The concept of EBM was born out of necessity to bring scientific principles into the heart of medicine. As outlined by Sackett,⁴ the practice of EBM is a process of lifelong, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues. Through EBM, we:

• convert these information needs into answerable questions
• track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer questions (whether from clinical examination, diagnostic laboratory results, research evidence, or other sources)
• critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (clinical applicability)
• integrate this appraisal with our clinical expertise and apply it in practice
• evaluate our performance.

Over the years, the original aim of EBM as a self-directed method for clinicians to practice high-quality medicine was morphed by some into a tool of enforced standardization and a boilerplate approach to managing costs across systems of care. As a result, the term EBM has been criticized because of:

• its reliance on empiricism
• a narrow definition of evidence
• a lack of evidence of efficacy
• its limited usefulness for individual patients
• threats to the autonomy of the doctor-patient relationship.

These 5 categories are associated with severe drawbacks when used for individual patient care.⁵ In addition to problems with applying standardized population research to a specific patient with a specific set of symptoms, medications, genetic variations, and unique environment, it can take years for clinicians to change their practices to incorporate new information.⁶

Continue to: Evidence that is too narrow...

Evidence that is too narrow in scope may not be useful. Single-molecule pharmaceutical clinical trials have erroneously become a synonym of EBM. Such studies do not reflect complex, real-life situations. Based on such studies, FDA product labeling can be inadequate in its guidance, particularly when faced with complex comorbidities. The standard comparison of active treatment to placebo is also seen as EBM, narrowing its scope and deflecting from clinical medicine when physicians measure one treatment’s success against another vs measuring real treatments against shams. Real-life treatment choice is frequently based on considering adverse effects as important to consider as therapeutic efficacy; however, this concept is outside of the common (mis)understanding of EBM.

Conflicting and ever-changing data and the push to replace clinical thinking with general dogmas trivializes medical practice and endangers treatment outcomes. This would not happen to the extent we see now if EBM was again seen as a guide and general direction rather than a blanket, distorted requirement to follow rigid recommendations for specific patients.

Insurance companies have driven a change in the understanding of EBM by using the FDA label as an excuse to deny, delay, and/or refuse to pay for treatments that are not explicitly and narrowly on-label. Dependence on on-label treatments is even more challenging in specialty medicine because primary care clinicians generally have tried the conventional approaches before referring patients to a specialist. However, insurance denials rarely differentiate between practice settings.

Medicolegal issues have cemented the present situation when clinically valid “off-label” treatments may be a reasonable consideration for patients but can place health care practitioners in jeopardy. The distorted EBM doctrine has become a justification for legal actions against clinicians who practice individualized medicine.

Concision bias (selectively focusing on information, losing nuance) and selection bias (patients in clinical trials who do not reflect real-life patients) have become an impediment to progress and EBM as originally intended.

Continue to: Training medical students and residents

Although there is some variation in how EBM is taught to medical students and residents,^7,8 the expectation is that such education occurs. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for a residency program state that “the program must advance residents’ knowledge and practice of the scholarly approach to evidence-based patient care.”⁹ The topic has been part of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Model Psychopharmacology Curriculum, but only in an optional lecture.¹⁰ The formal teaching of EBM includes how to find relevant biomedical publications for the clinical issues at hand, understand the different hierarchies of evidence, interpret results in terms of effect size, and apply this knowledge in the care of patients. This 5-step process is illustrated in Figure 2⁸. See Related Resources for 3 books that provide a scholarly yet clinically relevant approach to EBM.

Continuing medical education

Most Current Psychiatry readers have been out of residency for some time and have not necessarily been exposed to the philosophy and tools of EBM. It may be easier to simply jump in and learn about effect sizes and then use information already curated and apply this knowledge. A good starting point is a recap^11,12 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) for schizophrenia that answers the questions: “How large is the effect being measured?” “Is it clinically important?” and “How are we dealing with a result that may be statistically significant but irrelevant for day-to-day patient care?” Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can help explain this by allowing one to judge the clinical significance of a statistically significant result.¹³

Practical applications

There are common clinical scenarios where evidence is ignored, or where it is overvalued. For example, the treatment of bipolar depression can be made worse with the use of antidepressants.¹⁴ Does this mean that antidepressants should never be used? What about patient history and preference? What if the approved agents fail to relieve symptoms or are not well tolerated? Available FDA-approved choices may not always be suitable.¹⁵ The Table illustrates some of these scenarios.

The term evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been derided by some as “cookbook medicine.” To others, EBM conjures up the efforts of describing interventions in terms of comparative effectiveness, drowning us in a deluge of “evidence-based” publications. The moniker has also been hijacked by companies to name their Health Economics and Outcomes research divisions. The spirit behind EBM is getting lost. EBM is not just about the evidence; it is about how we use it.¹

In this commentary, we describe the concept of EBM and discuss teaching EBM to medical students and residents, its role in continuing medical education, and how it may be applied to practice, using a case scenario as a guide.

What is evidence-based medicine?

Sackett et al² summed it best in an editorial published in the BMJ in 1996, where he emphasized decision-making in the care of individual patients. When making clinical decisions, using the best evidence available makes sense, but so does integrating individual clinical expertise and considering the individual patient’s preferences. Sackett et al² warns about practice becoming tyrannized by evidence: “even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient.” Clearly, EBM is not cookbook medicine.

Figure 1³ illustrates EBM as the confluence of clinical judgment, relevant scientific evidence, and patients’ values and preferences. The results from a clinical trial are only one part of the equation. As practitioners, we have the advantage of detailed knowledge about the patient, and our decisions are not “one size fits all.” Prior information about the patient dictates how we apply the evidence that supports potential interventions.

The concept of EBM was born out of necessity to bring scientific principles into the heart of medicine. As outlined by Sackett,⁴ the practice of EBM is a process of lifelong, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues. Through EBM, we:

• convert these information needs into answerable questions
• track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer questions (whether from clinical examination, diagnostic laboratory results, research evidence, or other sources)
• critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (clinical applicability)
• integrate this appraisal with our clinical expertise and apply it in practice
• evaluate our performance.

Over the years, the original aim of EBM as a self-directed method for clinicians to practice high-quality medicine was morphed by some into a tool of enforced standardization and a boilerplate approach to managing costs across systems of care. As a result, the term EBM has been criticized because of:

• its reliance on empiricism
• a narrow definition of evidence
• a lack of evidence of efficacy
• its limited usefulness for individual patients
• threats to the autonomy of the doctor-patient relationship.

These 5 categories are associated with severe drawbacks when used for individual patient care.⁵ In addition to problems with applying standardized population research to a specific patient with a specific set of symptoms, medications, genetic variations, and unique environment, it can take years for clinicians to change their practices to incorporate new information.⁶

Continue to: Evidence that is too narrow...

Evidence that is too narrow in scope may not be useful. Single-molecule pharmaceutical clinical trials have erroneously become a synonym of EBM. Such studies do not reflect complex, real-life situations. Based on such studies, FDA product labeling can be inadequate in its guidance, particularly when faced with complex comorbidities. The standard comparison of active treatment to placebo is also seen as EBM, narrowing its scope and deflecting from clinical medicine when physicians measure one treatment’s success against another vs measuring real treatments against shams. Real-life treatment choice is frequently based on considering adverse effects as important to consider as therapeutic efficacy; however, this concept is outside of the common (mis)understanding of EBM.

Conflicting and ever-changing data and the push to replace clinical thinking with general dogmas trivializes medical practice and endangers treatment outcomes. This would not happen to the extent we see now if EBM was again seen as a guide and general direction rather than a blanket, distorted requirement to follow rigid recommendations for specific patients.

Insurance companies have driven a change in the understanding of EBM by using the FDA label as an excuse to deny, delay, and/or refuse to pay for treatments that are not explicitly and narrowly on-label. Dependence on on-label treatments is even more challenging in specialty medicine because primary care clinicians generally have tried the conventional approaches before referring patients to a specialist. However, insurance denials rarely differentiate between practice settings.

Medicolegal issues have cemented the present situation when clinically valid “off-label” treatments may be a reasonable consideration for patients but can place health care practitioners in jeopardy. The distorted EBM doctrine has become a justification for legal actions against clinicians who practice individualized medicine.

Concision bias (selectively focusing on information, losing nuance) and selection bias (patients in clinical trials who do not reflect real-life patients) have become an impediment to progress and EBM as originally intended.

Continue to: Training medical students and residents

Although there is some variation in how EBM is taught to medical students and residents,^7,8 the expectation is that such education occurs. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for a residency program state that “the program must advance residents’ knowledge and practice of the scholarly approach to evidence-based patient care.”⁹ The topic has been part of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology Model Psychopharmacology Curriculum, but only in an optional lecture.¹⁰ The formal teaching of EBM includes how to find relevant biomedical publications for the clinical issues at hand, understand the different hierarchies of evidence, interpret results in terms of effect size, and apply this knowledge in the care of patients. This 5-step process is illustrated in Figure 2⁸. See Related Resources for 3 books that provide a scholarly yet clinically relevant approach to EBM.

Continuing medical education

Most Current Psychiatry readers have been out of residency for some time and have not necessarily been exposed to the philosophy and tools of EBM. It may be easier to simply jump in and learn about effect sizes and then use information already curated and apply this knowledge. A good starting point is a recap^11,12 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) for schizophrenia that answers the questions: “How large is the effect being measured?” “Is it clinically important?” and “How are we dealing with a result that may be statistically significant but irrelevant for day-to-day patient care?” Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can help explain this by allowing one to judge the clinical significance of a statistically significant result.¹³

Practical applications

There are common clinical scenarios where evidence is ignored, or where it is overvalued. For example, the treatment of bipolar depression can be made worse with the use of antidepressants.¹⁴ Does this mean that antidepressants should never be used? What about patient history and preference? What if the approved agents fail to relieve symptoms or are not well tolerated? Available FDA-approved choices may not always be suitable.¹⁵ The Table illustrates some of these scenarios.

It breaks my heart every time young patients with functional disability and a history of several psychotic episodes are referred to me. It makes me wonder why they weren’t protected from a lifetime of disability with the use of one of the FDA-approved long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics right after discharge from their initial hospitalization for first-episode psychosis (FEP).

Two decades ago, psychiatric research discovered that psychotic episodes are neurotoxic and neurodegenerative, with grave consequences for the brain if they recur. Although many clinicians are aware of the high rate of nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia—which inevitably leads to a psychotic relapse—the vast majority (>99%, in my estimate) never prescribe an LAI after the FEP to guarantee full adherence and protect the patient’s brain from further atrophy due to relapses. The overall rate of LAI antipsychotic use is astonishingly low (approximately 10%), despite the neurologic malignancy of psychotic episodes. Further, LAIs are most often used after a patient has experienced multiple psychotic episodes, at which point the patient has already lost a significant amount of brain tissue and has already descended into a life of permanent disability.

Oral antipsychotics have the same efficacy as their LAI counterparts, and certainly should be used initially in the hospital during FEP to ascertain the absence of an allergic reaction after initial exposure, and to establish tolerability. Inpatient nurses are experts at making sure a reluctant patient actually swallows the pills and does not cheek them to spit them out later. So patients who have had FEP do improve with oral medications in the hospital, but all bets are off that those patients will regularly ingest tablets every day after discharge. Studies show patients have a high rate of nonadherence within days or weeks after leaving the hospital for FEP.¹ This leads to repetitive psychotic relapses and rehospitalizations, with dire consequences for young patients with schizophrenia—a very serious brain disorder that had been labeled “the worst disease of mankind”² in the era before studies showed LAI second-generation antipsychotics for FEP had remarkable rates of relapse prevention and recovery.^3,4

Psychiatrists should approach FEP the same way oncologists approach cancer when it is diagnosed as Stage 1. Oncologists immediately take action to prevent the recurrence of the patient’s cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, and do not wait for the cancer to advance to Stage 4, with widespread metastasis, before administering these potentially life-saving therapies (despite their toxic adverse effects). In schizophrenia, functional disability is the equivalent of Stage 4 cancer and should be aggressively prevented by using LAIs at the time of initial diagnosis, which is Stage 1 schizophrenia. Knowing the grave consequences of psychotic relapses, there is no logical reason whatsoever not to switch patients who have had FEP to an LAI before they are discharged from the hospital. A well-known study by a UCLA research group that compared patients who had FEP and were assigned to oral vs LAI antipsychotics at the time of discharge reported a stunning difference at the end of 1 year: a 650% higher relapse rate among the oral medication group compared with the LAI group!⁵ In light of such a massive difference, wouldn’t psychiatrists want to treat their sons or daughters with an LAI antipsychotic right after FEP? I certainly would, and I have always believed in treating every patient like a family member.

Catastrophic consequences

This lack of early intervention with LAI antipsychotics following FEP is the main reason schizophrenia is associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes. Patients are prescribed pills that they often take erratically or not at all, and end up relapsing repeatedly, with multiple catastrophic consequences, such as:

1. Brain tissue loss. Until recently, psychiatry did not know that psychosis destroys gray and white matter in the brain and causes progressive brain atrophy with every psychotic relapse.^6,7 The neurotoxicity of psychosis is attributed to 2 destructive processes: neuro­inflammation^8,9 and free radicals.¹⁰ Approximately 11 cc of brain tissue is lost during FEP and with every subsequent relapse.⁶ Simple math shows that after 3 to 5 relapses, patients’ brains will shrink by 35 cc to 60 cc. No wonder recurrent psychoses lead to a life of permanent disability. As I have said in a past editorial,¹¹ just as cardiologists do everything they can to prevent a second myocardial infarction (“heart attack”), psychiatrists must do the same to prevent a second psychotic episode (“brain attack”).

2. Treatment resistance. With each psychotic episode, the low antipsychotic dose that worked well in FEP is no longer enough and must be increased. The neurodegenerative effects of psychosis implies that the brain structure changes with each episode. Higher and higher doses become necessary with every psychotic recurrence, and studies show that approximately 1 in 8 patients may stop responding altogether after a psychotic relapse.¹²

Continue to: Disability

3. Disability. Functional disability, both vocational and social, usually begins after the second psychotic episode, which is why it is so important to prevent the second episode.¹³ Patients usually must drop out of high school or college or quit the job they held before FEP. Most patients with multiple psychotic episodes will never be able to work, get married, have children, live independently, or develop a circle of friends. Disability in schizophrenia is essentially a functional death sentence.¹⁴

4. Incarceration and criminalization. So many of our patients with schizophrenia get arrested when they become psychotic and behave erratically due to delusions, hallucinations, or both. They typically are taken to jail instead of a hospital because almost all the state hospitals around the country have been closed. It is outrageous that a medical condition of the brain leads to criminalization of patients with schizophrenia.¹⁵ The only solution for this ongoing crisis of incarceration of our patients with schizophrenia is to prevent them from relapsing into psychosis. The so-called deinstitutionalization movement has mutated into trans-institutionalization, moving patients who are medically ill from state hospitals to more restrictive state prisons. Patients with schizophrenia should be surrounded by a mental health team, not by armed prison guards. The rate of recidivism among these individuals is extremely high because patients who are released often stop taking their medications and get re-arrested when their behavior deteriorates.

5. Suicide. The rate of suicide in the first year after FEP is astronomical. A recent study reported an unimaginably high suicide rate: 17,000% higher than that of the general population.¹⁶ Many patients with FEP commit suicide after they stop taking their antipsychotic medication, and often no antipsychotic medication is detected in their postmortem blood samples.

6. Homelessness. A disproportionate number of patients with schizophrenia become homeless.¹⁷ It started in the 1980s, when the shuttering of state hospitals began and patients with chronic illnesses were released into the community to fend for themselves. Many perished. Others became homeless, living on the streets of urban areas.

7. Early mortality. Schizophrenia has repeatedly been shown to be associated with early mortality, with a loss of approximately 25 potential years of life.¹⁷ This is attributed to lifestyle risk factors (eg, sedentary living, poor diet) and multiple medical comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, hypertension). To make things worse, patients with schizophrenia do not receive basic medical care to protect them from cardiovascular morbidity, an appalling disparity of care.¹⁸ Interestingly, a recent 7-year follow-up study of patients with schizophrenia found that the lowest rate of mortality from all causes was among patients receiving a second-generation LAI.¹⁹ Relapse prevention with LAIs can reduce mortality! According to that study, the worst mortality rate was observed in patients with schizophrenia who were not receiving any antipsychotic medication.

Continue to: Posttraumatic stress disorder

8. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many studies report that psychosis triggers PTSD symptoms²⁰ because delusions and hallucinations can represent a life-threatening experience. The symptoms of PTSD get embedded within the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and every psychotic relapse serves as a “booster shot” for PTSD, leading to depression, anxiety, personality changes, aggressive behavior, and suicide.

9. Hopelessness, depression, and demoralization. The stigma of a severe psychiatric brain disorder such as schizophrenia, with multiple episodes, disability, incarceration, and homelessness, extends to the patients themselves, who become hopeless and demoralized by a chronic illness that marginalizes them into desperately ill individuals.²¹ The more psychotic episodes, the more intense the demoralization, hopelessness, and depression.

10. Family burden. The repercussions of psychotic relapses after FEP leads to significant financial and emotional stress on patients’ families.²² The heavy burden of caregiving among family members can be highly distressing, leading to depression and medical illness due to compromised immune functions.

Preventing relapse: It is not rocket science

It is obvious that the single most important therapeutic action for patients with schizophrenia is to prevent psychotic relapses. Even partial nonadherence must be prevented, because a drop of 25% in a patient’s serum antipsychotic level has been reported to lead to a psychotic relapse.²³ Preventing relapse after FEP is not rocket science: Switch the patient to an LAI before discharge from the hospital,²⁴ and provide the clinically necessary psychosocial treatments at every monthly follow-up visit (supportive psychotherapy, social skill training, vocational rehabilitation, and cognitive remediation). I have witnessed firsthand how stable and functional a patient who has had FEP can become when started on a second-generation LAI very soon after the onset of the illness.

I will finish with a simple question to my clinician readers: given the many devastating consequences of psychotic relapses, what would you do for your young patient with FEP? I hope you will treat them like a family member, and protect them from brain atrophy, disability, incarceration, homelessness, and suicide by starting them on an LAI antipsychotic before they leave the hospital. We must do no less for this highly vulnerable, young patient population.

It breaks my heart every time young patients with functional disability and a history of several psychotic episodes are referred to me. It makes me wonder why they weren’t protected from a lifetime of disability with the use of one of the FDA-approved long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics right after discharge from their initial hospitalization for first-episode psychosis (FEP).

Two decades ago, psychiatric research discovered that psychotic episodes are neurotoxic and neurodegenerative, with grave consequences for the brain if they recur. Although many clinicians are aware of the high rate of nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia—which inevitably leads to a psychotic relapse—the vast majority (>99%, in my estimate) never prescribe an LAI after the FEP to guarantee full adherence and protect the patient’s brain from further atrophy due to relapses. The overall rate of LAI antipsychotic use is astonishingly low (approximately 10%), despite the neurologic malignancy of psychotic episodes. Further, LAIs are most often used after a patient has experienced multiple psychotic episodes, at which point the patient has already lost a significant amount of brain tissue and has already descended into a life of permanent disability.

Oral antipsychotics have the same efficacy as their LAI counterparts, and certainly should be used initially in the hospital during FEP to ascertain the absence of an allergic reaction after initial exposure, and to establish tolerability. Inpatient nurses are experts at making sure a reluctant patient actually swallows the pills and does not cheek them to spit them out later. So patients who have had FEP do improve with oral medications in the hospital, but all bets are off that those patients will regularly ingest tablets every day after discharge. Studies show patients have a high rate of nonadherence within days or weeks after leaving the hospital for FEP.¹ This leads to repetitive psychotic relapses and rehospitalizations, with dire consequences for young patients with schizophrenia—a very serious brain disorder that had been labeled “the worst disease of mankind”² in the era before studies showed LAI second-generation antipsychotics for FEP had remarkable rates of relapse prevention and recovery.^3,4

Psychiatrists should approach FEP the same way oncologists approach cancer when it is diagnosed as Stage 1. Oncologists immediately take action to prevent the recurrence of the patient’s cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, and do not wait for the cancer to advance to Stage 4, with widespread metastasis, before administering these potentially life-saving therapies (despite their toxic adverse effects). In schizophrenia, functional disability is the equivalent of Stage 4 cancer and should be aggressively prevented by using LAIs at the time of initial diagnosis, which is Stage 1 schizophrenia. Knowing the grave consequences of psychotic relapses, there is no logical reason whatsoever not to switch patients who have had FEP to an LAI before they are discharged from the hospital. A well-known study by a UCLA research group that compared patients who had FEP and were assigned to oral vs LAI antipsychotics at the time of discharge reported a stunning difference at the end of 1 year: a 650% higher relapse rate among the oral medication group compared with the LAI group!⁵ In light of such a massive difference, wouldn’t psychiatrists want to treat their sons or daughters with an LAI antipsychotic right after FEP? I certainly would, and I have always believed in treating every patient like a family member.

Catastrophic consequences

This lack of early intervention with LAI antipsychotics following FEP is the main reason schizophrenia is associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes. Patients are prescribed pills that they often take erratically or not at all, and end up relapsing repeatedly, with multiple catastrophic consequences, such as:

1. Brain tissue loss. Until recently, psychiatry did not know that psychosis destroys gray and white matter in the brain and causes progressive brain atrophy with every psychotic relapse.^6,7 The neurotoxicity of psychosis is attributed to 2 destructive processes: neuro­inflammation^8,9 and free radicals.¹⁰ Approximately 11 cc of brain tissue is lost during FEP and with every subsequent relapse.⁶ Simple math shows that after 3 to 5 relapses, patients’ brains will shrink by 35 cc to 60 cc. No wonder recurrent psychoses lead to a life of permanent disability. As I have said in a past editorial,¹¹ just as cardiologists do everything they can to prevent a second myocardial infarction (“heart attack”), psychiatrists must do the same to prevent a second psychotic episode (“brain attack”).

2. Treatment resistance. With each psychotic episode, the low antipsychotic dose that worked well in FEP is no longer enough and must be increased. The neurodegenerative effects of psychosis implies that the brain structure changes with each episode. Higher and higher doses become necessary with every psychotic recurrence, and studies show that approximately 1 in 8 patients may stop responding altogether after a psychotic relapse.¹²

Continue to: Disability

3. Disability. Functional disability, both vocational and social, usually begins after the second psychotic episode, which is why it is so important to prevent the second episode.¹³ Patients usually must drop out of high school or college or quit the job they held before FEP. Most patients with multiple psychotic episodes will never be able to work, get married, have children, live independently, or develop a circle of friends. Disability in schizophrenia is essentially a functional death sentence.¹⁴

4. Incarceration and criminalization. So many of our patients with schizophrenia get arrested when they become psychotic and behave erratically due to delusions, hallucinations, or both. They typically are taken to jail instead of a hospital because almost all the state hospitals around the country have been closed. It is outrageous that a medical condition of the brain leads to criminalization of patients with schizophrenia.¹⁵ The only solution for this ongoing crisis of incarceration of our patients with schizophrenia is to prevent them from relapsing into psychosis. The so-called deinstitutionalization movement has mutated into trans-institutionalization, moving patients who are medically ill from state hospitals to more restrictive state prisons. Patients with schizophrenia should be surrounded by a mental health team, not by armed prison guards. The rate of recidivism among these individuals is extremely high because patients who are released often stop taking their medications and get re-arrested when their behavior deteriorates.

5. Suicide. The rate of suicide in the first year after FEP is astronomical. A recent study reported an unimaginably high suicide rate: 17,000% higher than that of the general population.¹⁶ Many patients with FEP commit suicide after they stop taking their antipsychotic medication, and often no antipsychotic medication is detected in their postmortem blood samples.

6. Homelessness. A disproportionate number of patients with schizophrenia become homeless.¹⁷ It started in the 1980s, when the shuttering of state hospitals began and patients with chronic illnesses were released into the community to fend for themselves. Many perished. Others became homeless, living on the streets of urban areas.

7. Early mortality. Schizophrenia has repeatedly been shown to be associated with early mortality, with a loss of approximately 25 potential years of life.¹⁷ This is attributed to lifestyle risk factors (eg, sedentary living, poor diet) and multiple medical comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, hypertension). To make things worse, patients with schizophrenia do not receive basic medical care to protect them from cardiovascular morbidity, an appalling disparity of care.¹⁸ Interestingly, a recent 7-year follow-up study of patients with schizophrenia found that the lowest rate of mortality from all causes was among patients receiving a second-generation LAI.¹⁹ Relapse prevention with LAIs can reduce mortality! According to that study, the worst mortality rate was observed in patients with schizophrenia who were not receiving any antipsychotic medication.

Continue to: Posttraumatic stress disorder

8. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many studies report that psychosis triggers PTSD symptoms²⁰ because delusions and hallucinations can represent a life-threatening experience. The symptoms of PTSD get embedded within the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and every psychotic relapse serves as a “booster shot” for PTSD, leading to depression, anxiety, personality changes, aggressive behavior, and suicide.

9. Hopelessness, depression, and demoralization. The stigma of a severe psychiatric brain disorder such as schizophrenia, with multiple episodes, disability, incarceration, and homelessness, extends to the patients themselves, who become hopeless and demoralized by a chronic illness that marginalizes them into desperately ill individuals.²¹ The more psychotic episodes, the more intense the demoralization, hopelessness, and depression.

10. Family burden. The repercussions of psychotic relapses after FEP leads to significant financial and emotional stress on patients’ families.²² The heavy burden of caregiving among family members can be highly distressing, leading to depression and medical illness due to compromised immune functions.

Preventing relapse: It is not rocket science

It is obvious that the single most important therapeutic action for patients with schizophrenia is to prevent psychotic relapses. Even partial nonadherence must be prevented, because a drop of 25% in a patient’s serum antipsychotic level has been reported to lead to a psychotic relapse.²³ Preventing relapse after FEP is not rocket science: Switch the patient to an LAI before discharge from the hospital,²⁴ and provide the clinically necessary psychosocial treatments at every monthly follow-up visit (supportive psychotherapy, social skill training, vocational rehabilitation, and cognitive remediation). I have witnessed firsthand how stable and functional a patient who has had FEP can become when started on a second-generation LAI very soon after the onset of the illness.

I will finish with a simple question to my clinician readers: given the many devastating consequences of psychotic relapses, what would you do for your young patient with FEP? I hope you will treat them like a family member, and protect them from brain atrophy, disability, incarceration, homelessness, and suicide by starting them on an LAI antipsychotic before they leave the hospital. We must do no less for this highly vulnerable, young patient population.

It breaks my heart every time young patients with functional disability and a history of several psychotic episodes are referred to me. It makes me wonder why they weren’t protected from a lifetime of disability with the use of one of the FDA-approved long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics right after discharge from their initial hospitalization for first-episode psychosis (FEP).

Two decades ago, psychiatric research discovered that psychotic episodes are neurotoxic and neurodegenerative, with grave consequences for the brain if they recur. Although many clinicians are aware of the high rate of nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia—which inevitably leads to a psychotic relapse—the vast majority (>99%, in my estimate) never prescribe an LAI after the FEP to guarantee full adherence and protect the patient’s brain from further atrophy due to relapses. The overall rate of LAI antipsychotic use is astonishingly low (approximately 10%), despite the neurologic malignancy of psychotic episodes. Further, LAIs are most often used after a patient has experienced multiple psychotic episodes, at which point the patient has already lost a significant amount of brain tissue and has already descended into a life of permanent disability.

Oral antipsychotics have the same efficacy as their LAI counterparts, and certainly should be used initially in the hospital during FEP to ascertain the absence of an allergic reaction after initial exposure, and to establish tolerability. Inpatient nurses are experts at making sure a reluctant patient actually swallows the pills and does not cheek them to spit them out later. So patients who have had FEP do improve with oral medications in the hospital, but all bets are off that those patients will regularly ingest tablets every day after discharge. Studies show patients have a high rate of nonadherence within days or weeks after leaving the hospital for FEP.¹ This leads to repetitive psychotic relapses and rehospitalizations, with dire consequences for young patients with schizophrenia—a very serious brain disorder that had been labeled “the worst disease of mankind”² in the era before studies showed LAI second-generation antipsychotics for FEP had remarkable rates of relapse prevention and recovery.^3,4

Psychiatrists should approach FEP the same way oncologists approach cancer when it is diagnosed as Stage 1. Oncologists immediately take action to prevent the recurrence of the patient’s cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, and do not wait for the cancer to advance to Stage 4, with widespread metastasis, before administering these potentially life-saving therapies (despite their toxic adverse effects). In schizophrenia, functional disability is the equivalent of Stage 4 cancer and should be aggressively prevented by using LAIs at the time of initial diagnosis, which is Stage 1 schizophrenia. Knowing the grave consequences of psychotic relapses, there is no logical reason whatsoever not to switch patients who have had FEP to an LAI before they are discharged from the hospital. A well-known study by a UCLA research group that compared patients who had FEP and were assigned to oral vs LAI antipsychotics at the time of discharge reported a stunning difference at the end of 1 year: a 650% higher relapse rate among the oral medication group compared with the LAI group!⁵ In light of such a massive difference, wouldn’t psychiatrists want to treat their sons or daughters with an LAI antipsychotic right after FEP? I certainly would, and I have always believed in treating every patient like a family member.

Catastrophic consequences

This lack of early intervention with LAI antipsychotics following FEP is the main reason schizophrenia is associated with poor clinical and functional outcomes. Patients are prescribed pills that they often take erratically or not at all, and end up relapsing repeatedly, with multiple catastrophic consequences, such as:

1. Brain tissue loss. Until recently, psychiatry did not know that psychosis destroys gray and white matter in the brain and causes progressive brain atrophy with every psychotic relapse.^6,7 The neurotoxicity of psychosis is attributed to 2 destructive processes: neuro­inflammation^8,9 and free radicals.¹⁰ Approximately 11 cc of brain tissue is lost during FEP and with every subsequent relapse.⁶ Simple math shows that after 3 to 5 relapses, patients’ brains will shrink by 35 cc to 60 cc. No wonder recurrent psychoses lead to a life of permanent disability. As I have said in a past editorial,¹¹ just as cardiologists do everything they can to prevent a second myocardial infarction (“heart attack”), psychiatrists must do the same to prevent a second psychotic episode (“brain attack”).

2. Treatment resistance. With each psychotic episode, the low antipsychotic dose that worked well in FEP is no longer enough and must be increased. The neurodegenerative effects of psychosis implies that the brain structure changes with each episode. Higher and higher doses become necessary with every psychotic recurrence, and studies show that approximately 1 in 8 patients may stop responding altogether after a psychotic relapse.¹²

Continue to: Disability

3. Disability. Functional disability, both vocational and social, usually begins after the second psychotic episode, which is why it is so important to prevent the second episode.¹³ Patients usually must drop out of high school or college or quit the job they held before FEP. Most patients with multiple psychotic episodes will never be able to work, get married, have children, live independently, or develop a circle of friends. Disability in schizophrenia is essentially a functional death sentence.¹⁴

4. Incarceration and criminalization. So many of our patients with schizophrenia get arrested when they become psychotic and behave erratically due to delusions, hallucinations, or both. They typically are taken to jail instead of a hospital because almost all the state hospitals around the country have been closed. It is outrageous that a medical condition of the brain leads to criminalization of patients with schizophrenia.¹⁵ The only solution for this ongoing crisis of incarceration of our patients with schizophrenia is to prevent them from relapsing into psychosis. The so-called deinstitutionalization movement has mutated into trans-institutionalization, moving patients who are medically ill from state hospitals to more restrictive state prisons. Patients with schizophrenia should be surrounded by a mental health team, not by armed prison guards. The rate of recidivism among these individuals is extremely high because patients who are released often stop taking their medications and get re-arrested when their behavior deteriorates.

5. Suicide. The rate of suicide in the first year after FEP is astronomical. A recent study reported an unimaginably high suicide rate: 17,000% higher than that of the general population.¹⁶ Many patients with FEP commit suicide after they stop taking their antipsychotic medication, and often no antipsychotic medication is detected in their postmortem blood samples.

6. Homelessness. A disproportionate number of patients with schizophrenia become homeless.¹⁷ It started in the 1980s, when the shuttering of state hospitals began and patients with chronic illnesses were released into the community to fend for themselves. Many perished. Others became homeless, living on the streets of urban areas.

7. Early mortality. Schizophrenia has repeatedly been shown to be associated with early mortality, with a loss of approximately 25 potential years of life.¹⁷ This is attributed to lifestyle risk factors (eg, sedentary living, poor diet) and multiple medical comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, hypertension). To make things worse, patients with schizophrenia do not receive basic medical care to protect them from cardiovascular morbidity, an appalling disparity of care.¹⁸ Interestingly, a recent 7-year follow-up study of patients with schizophrenia found that the lowest rate of mortality from all causes was among patients receiving a second-generation LAI.¹⁹ Relapse prevention with LAIs can reduce mortality! According to that study, the worst mortality rate was observed in patients with schizophrenia who were not receiving any antipsychotic medication.

Continue to: Posttraumatic stress disorder

8. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many studies report that psychosis triggers PTSD symptoms²⁰ because delusions and hallucinations can represent a life-threatening experience. The symptoms of PTSD get embedded within the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and every psychotic relapse serves as a “booster shot” for PTSD, leading to depression, anxiety, personality changes, aggressive behavior, and suicide.

9. Hopelessness, depression, and demoralization. The stigma of a severe psychiatric brain disorder such as schizophrenia, with multiple episodes, disability, incarceration, and homelessness, extends to the patients themselves, who become hopeless and demoralized by a chronic illness that marginalizes them into desperately ill individuals.²¹ The more psychotic episodes, the more intense the demoralization, hopelessness, and depression.

10. Family burden. The repercussions of psychotic relapses after FEP leads to significant financial and emotional stress on patients’ families.²² The heavy burden of caregiving among family members can be highly distressing, leading to depression and medical illness due to compromised immune functions.

Preventing relapse: It is not rocket science

It is obvious that the single most important therapeutic action for patients with schizophrenia is to prevent psychotic relapses. Even partial nonadherence must be prevented, because a drop of 25% in a patient’s serum antipsychotic level has been reported to lead to a psychotic relapse.²³ Preventing relapse after FEP is not rocket science: Switch the patient to an LAI before discharge from the hospital,²⁴ and provide the clinically necessary psychosocial treatments at every monthly follow-up visit (supportive psychotherapy, social skill training, vocational rehabilitation, and cognitive remediation). I have witnessed firsthand how stable and functional a patient who has had FEP can become when started on a second-generation LAI very soon after the onset of the illness.

I will finish with a simple question to my clinician readers: given the many devastating consequences of psychotic relapses, what would you do for your young patient with FEP? I hope you will treat them like a family member, and protect them from brain atrophy, disability, incarceration, homelessness, and suicide by starting them on an LAI antipsychotic before they leave the hospital. We must do no less for this highly vulnerable, young patient population.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

Depressive episodes are part of DSM-5 criteria for bipolar II disorder, and are also often experienced by patients with bipolar I disorder.¹ Depressive episodes predominate the clinical course of bipolar disorder.^2,3 Compared with manic and hypomanic episodes, bipolar depressive episodes have a stronger association with long-term morbidity, suicidal behavior, and impaired functioning.^4,5 Approximately 20% to 60% of patients with bipolar disorder attempt suicide at least once in their lifetime, and 4% to 19% die by suicide. Compared with the general population, the risk of death by suicide is 10 to 30 times higher in patients with bipolar disorder.⁶

Treatment of bipolar depression is less investigated than treatment of unipolar depression or bipolar mania. The mainstays of treatment for bipolar depression include mood stabilizers (eg, lithium, valproic acid, or lamotrigine), second-generation antipsychotics (eg, risperidone, quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine), adjunctive antidepressants (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or bupropion), and combinations of the above. While significant progress has been made in the treatment of mania, achieving remission for patients with bipolar depression remains a challenge. Anti-manic medications reduce depressive symptoms in only one-third of patients.⁷ Antidepressant monotherapy can induce hypomania and rapid cycling.⁸ Electroconvulsive therapy has also been used for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but is usually reserved as a last resort.⁹

Research to investigate novel therapeutics for bipolar depression is a high priority. Patients with bipolar disorder are susceptible to environmental cues that alter circadian rhythms and trigger relapse. Recent studies have suggested that bright light therapy (BLT), an accepted treatment for seasonal depression, also may be useful for treating nonseasonal depression.¹⁰ Patients with bipolar depression frequently have delayed sleep phase and atypical depressive features (hypersomnia, hyperphagia, and lethargy), which predict response to light therapy.¹¹ In this article, we review 6 recent studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of BLT for treating bipolar depression (Table^12-17).

1. Wang S, Zhang Z, Yao L, et al. Bright light therapy in treatment of patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232798

In this meta-analysis, Wang et al¹² examined the role of BLT in treating bipolar depression. They also explored variables of BLT, including duration, timing, color, and color temperature, and how these factors may affect the severity of depressive symptoms.

Study design

• Two researchers conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as 4 Chinese databases from inception to March 2020. Search terms included “phototherapy,” “bright light therapy,” “bipolar disorder,” and “bipolar affective disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that used a clearly defined diagnosis of bipolar depression. Five RCTs and 7 cohort studies with a total of 847 participants were included.
• The primary outcomes were depression severity, efficacy of duration/timing of BLT for depressive symptoms, and efficacy of different light color/color temperatures for depressive symptoms.

Outcomes

• As assessed by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D); Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating; or the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D, depression severity significantly decreased (P < .05) with BLT intensity ≥5,000 lux when compared with placebo.
• Subgroup analyses suggested that BLT can improve depression severity with or without adjuvant therapy. Duration of <10 hours and >10 hours with morning light vs morning plus evening light therapy all produced a significant decrease in depressive symptoms (P < .05).
• White light therapy also significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05). Color temperatures >4,500K and <4,500K both significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05).

• BLT (at various durations, timings, colors, and color temperatures) can reduce depression severity.
• This analysis only included studies that showed short-term improvements in depressive symptoms, which brings into question the long-term utility of BLT.

2. Lam RW, Teng MY, Jung YE, et al. Light therapy for patients with bipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Psychiatry. 2020;65(5):290-300.

Lam et al¹³ examined the role of BLT for patients with bipolar depression in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Continue to: Study design

• Investigators conducted a systematic review of RCTs of BLT for patients with bipolar depression. Articles were obtained from Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov using the search terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” “light treatment,” and “bipolar.”
• Inclusion criteria required patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder currently experiencing a depressive episode, a clinician-rated measure of depressive symptomatology, a specific light intervention, and a randomized trial design with a control.
• A total of 7 RCTs with 259 participants were reviewed. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms based on the 17-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• BLT was associated with a significant improvement in clinician-rated depressive symptoms (P = .03).
• Data for clinical response obtained from 6 trials showed a significant difference favoring BLT vs control (P = .024). Data for remission obtained from 5 trials showed no significant difference between BLT and control (P = .09).
• Compared with control, BLT was not associated with an increased risk of affective switches (P= .67).

Conclusion

• This study suggests a small to moderate but significant effect of BLT in reducing depressive symptoms.
• Study limitations included inconsistent light parameters, short follow-up time, small sample sizes, and the possibility that control conditions had treatment effects (eg, dim light as control vs no light).

3. Hirakawa H, Terao T, Muronaga M, et al. Adjunctive bright light therapy for treating bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Brain Behav. 2020;10(12):ee01876. doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1876

Hirakawa et al¹⁴ assessed the role of adjunctive BLT for treating bipolar depression. Previous meta-analyses focused on case-control studies that assessed the effects of BLT and sleep deprivation therapy on depressive symptoms, but this meta-analy­sis reviewed RCTs that did not include sleep deprivation therapy.

Continue to: Study design

Study design

• Two authors searched Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019 using the terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” and “bipolar disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for RCTs, participants age ≥18, a diagnosis of bipolar disorder according to standard diagnostic criteria, evaluation by a standardized scale (HAM-D, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement [SIGH-ADS]), and light therapy as the experimental group intervention.
• The main outcomes were response rate (defined as ≥50% reduction in depression severity based on a standardized scale) and remission rate (defined as a reduction to 7 points on HAM-D, reduction to 9 points on MADRS, and score <8 on SIGH-ADS).
• Four RCTs with a total of 190 participants with bipolar depression were evaluated.

Outcomes

• BLT had a significant effect on response rate (P = .002).
• There was no significant effect of BLT on remission rates (P = .34).
• No studies reported serious adverse effects. Minor effects included headache (14.9% for BLT vs 12.5% for control), irritability (4.26% for BLT vs 2.08% for control), and sleep disturbance (2.13% for BLT vs 2.08% for control). The manic switch rate was 1.1% in BLT vs 1.2% in control.

Conclusion

• BLT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms in bipolar disorder, but does not affect remission rates.
• This meta-analysis was based on a small number of RCTs, and light therapy parameters were inconsistent across the studies. Furthermore, most patients were also being treated with mood-stabilizing or antidepressant medications.
• It is unclear if BLT is effective as monotherapy, rather than as adjunctive therapy.

4. D’Agostino A, Ferrara P, Terzoni S,  et al. Efficacy of triple chronotherapy in unipolar and bipolar depression: a systematic review of available evidence. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:297-304.

Triple chronotherapy is the combination of total sleep deprivation, sleep phase advance, and BLT. D’Agostino et al¹⁵ reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy of triple chronotherapy interventions in treating symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from inception to December 2019 using the terms “depression,” “sleep deprivation,” “chronotherapy,” and related words.
• The review included studies of all execution modalities, sequences of interventions, and types of control groups (eg, active control vs placebo). The population included participants of any age with MDD or bipolar depression.
• Two authors independently screened studies. Six articles published between 2009 and 2019 with a total of 190 patients were included.

Continue to: Outcomes

• All studies reported improvement in HAM-D scores at the end of treatment with triple chronotherapy, with response rates ranging from 50% to 84%.
• Most studies had a short follow-up period (up to 3 weeks). In these studies, response rates ranged from 58.3% to 61.5%. One study that had a 7-week follow-up also reported a statistically significant response rate in favor of triple chronotherapy.
• Remission rates, defined by different cut-offs depending on which version of the HAM-D was used, were evaluated in 5 studies. These rates ranged from 33.3% to 77%.
• Two studies that used the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale to assess the effect of triple chronotherapy on suicide risk reported a significant improvement in scores.

Conclusion

• Triple chronotherapy may be an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for depression. Some studies suggest that it also may play a role in remission from depression and reducing suicide risk.

5. Dallaspezia S, Benedetti F. Antidepressant light therapy for bipolar patients: a meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:943-948.

In a meta-analysis, Dallaspezia and Benedetti¹⁶ evaluated 11 studies to assess the role of BLT for treating depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched literature published on PubMed with the terms “mood disorder,” “depression,” and “light therapy.”
• Eleven studies with a total of 195 participants were included. Five studies were RCTs.
• The primary outcome was severity of depression based on scores on the HAM-D, Beck Depression Inventory, or SIGH-ADS. Secondary outcomes were light intensity (measured in lux) and duration of treatment.

Outcomes

• Analysis of all 11 studies revealed a positive effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• Analysis of just the 5 RCTs found a significant effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• The switch rate due to BLT was lower than rates for patients being treated with antidepressant monotherapy (15% to 40%) or placebo (4.2%).
• Duration of treatment influenced treatment outcomes (P = .05); a longer duration resulted in the highest clinical effect. However, regardless of duration, BLT showed higher antidepressant effects than placebo.
• Higher light intensity was also found to show greater efficacy.

Continue to: Conclusion

• BLT is an effective adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression.
• Higher light intensity and longer duration of BLT may result in greater antidepressant effects, although the optimum duration and intensity are unknown.
• A significant limitation of this study was that the studies reviewed had high heterogeneity, and only a few were RCTs.

6. Takeshima M, Utsumi T, Aoki Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bright light therapy for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(4):247-256.

Takeshima et al¹⁷ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BLT for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. They also evaluated if BLT could prevent recurrent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies of BLT for bipolar disorder in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsychInfo, and Clincialtrials.gov using the terms “bipolar disorder,” “phototherapy,” and “randomized controlled trial.”
• Two groups of 2 authors independently screened titles and abstracts for the following inclusion criteria: RCTs, 80% of patients diagnosed clinically with bipolar disorder, any type of light therapy, and control groups that included sham treatment or no light. Three groups of 2 authors then evaluated the quality of the studies and risk of bias.
• Six studies with a total of 280 participants were included.
• Primary outcome measures included rates of remission from depressive or manic episodes, rates of relapse from euthymic states, and changes in score on depression or mania rating scales.

Outcomes

• No significant differences were found between BLT and placebo for rates of remission from depressive episodes (P = .42), rates of manic switching (P = .26), or depressive symptom scores (P = .30).
• Sensitivity analysis for 3 studies with low overall indirectness revealed that BLT did have a significant antidepressant effect (P = .006).
• The most commonly reported adverse effects of BLT were headache (4.7%) and sleep disturbance (1.4%).

Conclusion

• This meta-analysis suggests that BLT does not have a significant antidepressant effect. However, a sensitivity analysis of studies with low overall indirectness showed that BLT does have a significant antidepressant effect.
• This review was based on a small number of RCTs that had inconsistent placebos (dim light, negative ion, no light, etc.) and varying parameters of BLT (light intensity, exposure duration, color of light), which may have contributed to the inconsistent results.

Depressive episodes are part of DSM-5 criteria for bipolar II disorder, and are also often experienced by patients with bipolar I disorder.¹ Depressive episodes predominate the clinical course of bipolar disorder.^2,3 Compared with manic and hypomanic episodes, bipolar depressive episodes have a stronger association with long-term morbidity, suicidal behavior, and impaired functioning.^4,5 Approximately 20% to 60% of patients with bipolar disorder attempt suicide at least once in their lifetime, and 4% to 19% die by suicide. Compared with the general population, the risk of death by suicide is 10 to 30 times higher in patients with bipolar disorder.⁶

Treatment of bipolar depression is less investigated than treatment of unipolar depression or bipolar mania. The mainstays of treatment for bipolar depression include mood stabilizers (eg, lithium, valproic acid, or lamotrigine), second-generation antipsychotics (eg, risperidone, quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine), adjunctive antidepressants (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or bupropion), and combinations of the above. While significant progress has been made in the treatment of mania, achieving remission for patients with bipolar depression remains a challenge. Anti-manic medications reduce depressive symptoms in only one-third of patients.⁷ Antidepressant monotherapy can induce hypomania and rapid cycling.⁸ Electroconvulsive therapy has also been used for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but is usually reserved as a last resort.⁹

Research to investigate novel therapeutics for bipolar depression is a high priority. Patients with bipolar disorder are susceptible to environmental cues that alter circadian rhythms and trigger relapse. Recent studies have suggested that bright light therapy (BLT), an accepted treatment for seasonal depression, also may be useful for treating nonseasonal depression.¹⁰ Patients with bipolar depression frequently have delayed sleep phase and atypical depressive features (hypersomnia, hyperphagia, and lethargy), which predict response to light therapy.¹¹ In this article, we review 6 recent studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of BLT for treating bipolar depression (Table^12-17).

1. Wang S, Zhang Z, Yao L, et al. Bright light therapy in treatment of patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232798

In this meta-analysis, Wang et al¹² examined the role of BLT in treating bipolar depression. They also explored variables of BLT, including duration, timing, color, and color temperature, and how these factors may affect the severity of depressive symptoms.

Study design

• Two researchers conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as 4 Chinese databases from inception to March 2020. Search terms included “phototherapy,” “bright light therapy,” “bipolar disorder,” and “bipolar affective disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that used a clearly defined diagnosis of bipolar depression. Five RCTs and 7 cohort studies with a total of 847 participants were included.
• The primary outcomes were depression severity, efficacy of duration/timing of BLT for depressive symptoms, and efficacy of different light color/color temperatures for depressive symptoms.

Outcomes

• As assessed by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D); Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating; or the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D, depression severity significantly decreased (P < .05) with BLT intensity ≥5,000 lux when compared with placebo.
• Subgroup analyses suggested that BLT can improve depression severity with or without adjuvant therapy. Duration of <10 hours and >10 hours with morning light vs morning plus evening light therapy all produced a significant decrease in depressive symptoms (P < .05).
• White light therapy also significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05). Color temperatures >4,500K and <4,500K both significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05).

• BLT (at various durations, timings, colors, and color temperatures) can reduce depression severity.
• This analysis only included studies that showed short-term improvements in depressive symptoms, which brings into question the long-term utility of BLT.

2. Lam RW, Teng MY, Jung YE, et al. Light therapy for patients with bipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Psychiatry. 2020;65(5):290-300.

Lam et al¹³ examined the role of BLT for patients with bipolar depression in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Continue to: Study design

• Investigators conducted a systematic review of RCTs of BLT for patients with bipolar depression. Articles were obtained from Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov using the search terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” “light treatment,” and “bipolar.”
• Inclusion criteria required patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder currently experiencing a depressive episode, a clinician-rated measure of depressive symptomatology, a specific light intervention, and a randomized trial design with a control.
• A total of 7 RCTs with 259 participants were reviewed. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms based on the 17-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• BLT was associated with a significant improvement in clinician-rated depressive symptoms (P = .03).
• Data for clinical response obtained from 6 trials showed a significant difference favoring BLT vs control (P = .024). Data for remission obtained from 5 trials showed no significant difference between BLT and control (P = .09).
• Compared with control, BLT was not associated with an increased risk of affective switches (P= .67).

Conclusion

• This study suggests a small to moderate but significant effect of BLT in reducing depressive symptoms.
• Study limitations included inconsistent light parameters, short follow-up time, small sample sizes, and the possibility that control conditions had treatment effects (eg, dim light as control vs no light).

3. Hirakawa H, Terao T, Muronaga M, et al. Adjunctive bright light therapy for treating bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Brain Behav. 2020;10(12):ee01876. doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1876

Hirakawa et al¹⁴ assessed the role of adjunctive BLT for treating bipolar depression. Previous meta-analyses focused on case-control studies that assessed the effects of BLT and sleep deprivation therapy on depressive symptoms, but this meta-analy­sis reviewed RCTs that did not include sleep deprivation therapy.

Continue to: Study design

Study design

• Two authors searched Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019 using the terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” and “bipolar disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for RCTs, participants age ≥18, a diagnosis of bipolar disorder according to standard diagnostic criteria, evaluation by a standardized scale (HAM-D, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement [SIGH-ADS]), and light therapy as the experimental group intervention.
• The main outcomes were response rate (defined as ≥50% reduction in depression severity based on a standardized scale) and remission rate (defined as a reduction to 7 points on HAM-D, reduction to 9 points on MADRS, and score <8 on SIGH-ADS).
• Four RCTs with a total of 190 participants with bipolar depression were evaluated.

Outcomes

• BLT had a significant effect on response rate (P = .002).
• There was no significant effect of BLT on remission rates (P = .34).
• No studies reported serious adverse effects. Minor effects included headache (14.9% for BLT vs 12.5% for control), irritability (4.26% for BLT vs 2.08% for control), and sleep disturbance (2.13% for BLT vs 2.08% for control). The manic switch rate was 1.1% in BLT vs 1.2% in control.

Conclusion

• BLT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms in bipolar disorder, but does not affect remission rates.
• This meta-analysis was based on a small number of RCTs, and light therapy parameters were inconsistent across the studies. Furthermore, most patients were also being treated with mood-stabilizing or antidepressant medications.
• It is unclear if BLT is effective as monotherapy, rather than as adjunctive therapy.

4. D’Agostino A, Ferrara P, Terzoni S,  et al. Efficacy of triple chronotherapy in unipolar and bipolar depression: a systematic review of available evidence. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:297-304.

Triple chronotherapy is the combination of total sleep deprivation, sleep phase advance, and BLT. D’Agostino et al¹⁵ reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy of triple chronotherapy interventions in treating symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from inception to December 2019 using the terms “depression,” “sleep deprivation,” “chronotherapy,” and related words.
• The review included studies of all execution modalities, sequences of interventions, and types of control groups (eg, active control vs placebo). The population included participants of any age with MDD or bipolar depression.
• Two authors independently screened studies. Six articles published between 2009 and 2019 with a total of 190 patients were included.

Continue to: Outcomes

• All studies reported improvement in HAM-D scores at the end of treatment with triple chronotherapy, with response rates ranging from 50% to 84%.
• Most studies had a short follow-up period (up to 3 weeks). In these studies, response rates ranged from 58.3% to 61.5%. One study that had a 7-week follow-up also reported a statistically significant response rate in favor of triple chronotherapy.
• Remission rates, defined by different cut-offs depending on which version of the HAM-D was used, were evaluated in 5 studies. These rates ranged from 33.3% to 77%.
• Two studies that used the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale to assess the effect of triple chronotherapy on suicide risk reported a significant improvement in scores.

Conclusion

• Triple chronotherapy may be an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for depression. Some studies suggest that it also may play a role in remission from depression and reducing suicide risk.

5. Dallaspezia S, Benedetti F. Antidepressant light therapy for bipolar patients: a meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:943-948.

In a meta-analysis, Dallaspezia and Benedetti¹⁶ evaluated 11 studies to assess the role of BLT for treating depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched literature published on PubMed with the terms “mood disorder,” “depression,” and “light therapy.”
• Eleven studies with a total of 195 participants were included. Five studies were RCTs.
• The primary outcome was severity of depression based on scores on the HAM-D, Beck Depression Inventory, or SIGH-ADS. Secondary outcomes were light intensity (measured in lux) and duration of treatment.

Outcomes

• Analysis of all 11 studies revealed a positive effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• Analysis of just the 5 RCTs found a significant effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• The switch rate due to BLT was lower than rates for patients being treated with antidepressant monotherapy (15% to 40%) or placebo (4.2%).
• Duration of treatment influenced treatment outcomes (P = .05); a longer duration resulted in the highest clinical effect. However, regardless of duration, BLT showed higher antidepressant effects than placebo.
• Higher light intensity was also found to show greater efficacy.

Continue to: Conclusion

• BLT is an effective adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression.
• Higher light intensity and longer duration of BLT may result in greater antidepressant effects, although the optimum duration and intensity are unknown.
• A significant limitation of this study was that the studies reviewed had high heterogeneity, and only a few were RCTs.

6. Takeshima M, Utsumi T, Aoki Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bright light therapy for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(4):247-256.

Takeshima et al¹⁷ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BLT for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. They also evaluated if BLT could prevent recurrent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies of BLT for bipolar disorder in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsychInfo, and Clincialtrials.gov using the terms “bipolar disorder,” “phototherapy,” and “randomized controlled trial.”
• Two groups of 2 authors independently screened titles and abstracts for the following inclusion criteria: RCTs, 80% of patients diagnosed clinically with bipolar disorder, any type of light therapy, and control groups that included sham treatment or no light. Three groups of 2 authors then evaluated the quality of the studies and risk of bias.
• Six studies with a total of 280 participants were included.
• Primary outcome measures included rates of remission from depressive or manic episodes, rates of relapse from euthymic states, and changes in score on depression or mania rating scales.

Outcomes

• No significant differences were found between BLT and placebo for rates of remission from depressive episodes (P = .42), rates of manic switching (P = .26), or depressive symptom scores (P = .30).
• Sensitivity analysis for 3 studies with low overall indirectness revealed that BLT did have a significant antidepressant effect (P = .006).
• The most commonly reported adverse effects of BLT were headache (4.7%) and sleep disturbance (1.4%).

Conclusion

• This meta-analysis suggests that BLT does not have a significant antidepressant effect. However, a sensitivity analysis of studies with low overall indirectness showed that BLT does have a significant antidepressant effect.
• This review was based on a small number of RCTs that had inconsistent placebos (dim light, negative ion, no light, etc.) and varying parameters of BLT (light intensity, exposure duration, color of light), which may have contributed to the inconsistent results.

Depressive episodes are part of DSM-5 criteria for bipolar II disorder, and are also often experienced by patients with bipolar I disorder.¹ Depressive episodes predominate the clinical course of bipolar disorder.^2,3 Compared with manic and hypomanic episodes, bipolar depressive episodes have a stronger association with long-term morbidity, suicidal behavior, and impaired functioning.^4,5 Approximately 20% to 60% of patients with bipolar disorder attempt suicide at least once in their lifetime, and 4% to 19% die by suicide. Compared with the general population, the risk of death by suicide is 10 to 30 times higher in patients with bipolar disorder.⁶

Treatment of bipolar depression is less investigated than treatment of unipolar depression or bipolar mania. The mainstays of treatment for bipolar depression include mood stabilizers (eg, lithium, valproic acid, or lamotrigine), second-generation antipsychotics (eg, risperidone, quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine), adjunctive antidepressants (eg, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or bupropion), and combinations of the above. While significant progress has been made in the treatment of mania, achieving remission for patients with bipolar depression remains a challenge. Anti-manic medications reduce depressive symptoms in only one-third of patients.⁷ Antidepressant monotherapy can induce hypomania and rapid cycling.⁸ Electroconvulsive therapy has also been used for treatment-resistant bipolar depression, but is usually reserved as a last resort.⁹

Research to investigate novel therapeutics for bipolar depression is a high priority. Patients with bipolar disorder are susceptible to environmental cues that alter circadian rhythms and trigger relapse. Recent studies have suggested that bright light therapy (BLT), an accepted treatment for seasonal depression, also may be useful for treating nonseasonal depression.¹⁰ Patients with bipolar depression frequently have delayed sleep phase and atypical depressive features (hypersomnia, hyperphagia, and lethargy), which predict response to light therapy.¹¹ In this article, we review 6 recent studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of BLT for treating bipolar depression (Table^12-17).

1. Wang S, Zhang Z, Yao L, et al. Bright light therapy in treatment of patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232798

In this meta-analysis, Wang et al¹² examined the role of BLT in treating bipolar depression. They also explored variables of BLT, including duration, timing, color, and color temperature, and how these factors may affect the severity of depressive symptoms.

Study design

• Two researchers conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as 4 Chinese databases from inception to March 2020. Search terms included “phototherapy,” “bright light therapy,” “bipolar disorder,” and “bipolar affective disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that used a clearly defined diagnosis of bipolar depression. Five RCTs and 7 cohort studies with a total of 847 participants were included.
• The primary outcomes were depression severity, efficacy of duration/timing of BLT for depressive symptoms, and efficacy of different light color/color temperatures for depressive symptoms.

Outcomes

• As assessed by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D); Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating; or the Structured Interview Guide for the HAM-D, depression severity significantly decreased (P < .05) with BLT intensity ≥5,000 lux when compared with placebo.
• Subgroup analyses suggested that BLT can improve depression severity with or without adjuvant therapy. Duration of <10 hours and >10 hours with morning light vs morning plus evening light therapy all produced a significant decrease in depressive symptoms (P < .05).
• White light therapy also significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05). Color temperatures >4,500K and <4,500K both significantly decreased depression severity (P < .05).

• BLT (at various durations, timings, colors, and color temperatures) can reduce depression severity.
• This analysis only included studies that showed short-term improvements in depressive symptoms, which brings into question the long-term utility of BLT.

2. Lam RW, Teng MY, Jung YE, et al. Light therapy for patients with bipolar depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can J Psychiatry. 2020;65(5):290-300.

Lam et al¹³ examined the role of BLT for patients with bipolar depression in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Continue to: Study design

• Investigators conducted a systematic review of RCTs of BLT for patients with bipolar depression. Articles were obtained from Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov using the search terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” “light treatment,” and “bipolar.”
• Inclusion criteria required patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder currently experiencing a depressive episode, a clinician-rated measure of depressive symptomatology, a specific light intervention, and a randomized trial design with a control.
• A total of 7 RCTs with 259 participants were reviewed. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms based on the 17-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• BLT was associated with a significant improvement in clinician-rated depressive symptoms (P = .03).
• Data for clinical response obtained from 6 trials showed a significant difference favoring BLT vs control (P = .024). Data for remission obtained from 5 trials showed no significant difference between BLT and control (P = .09).
• Compared with control, BLT was not associated with an increased risk of affective switches (P= .67).

Conclusion

• This study suggests a small to moderate but significant effect of BLT in reducing depressive symptoms.
• Study limitations included inconsistent light parameters, short follow-up time, small sample sizes, and the possibility that control conditions had treatment effects (eg, dim light as control vs no light).

3. Hirakawa H, Terao T, Muronaga M, et al. Adjunctive bright light therapy for treating bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Brain Behav. 2020;10(12):ee01876. doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1876

Hirakawa et al¹⁴ assessed the role of adjunctive BLT for treating bipolar depression. Previous meta-analyses focused on case-control studies that assessed the effects of BLT and sleep deprivation therapy on depressive symptoms, but this meta-analy­sis reviewed RCTs that did not include sleep deprivation therapy.

Continue to: Study design

Study design

• Two authors searched Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019 using the terms “light therapy,” “phototherapy,” and “bipolar disorder.”
• Inclusion criteria called for RCTs, participants age ≥18, a diagnosis of bipolar disorder according to standard diagnostic criteria, evaluation by a standardized scale (HAM-D, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement [SIGH-ADS]), and light therapy as the experimental group intervention.
• The main outcomes were response rate (defined as ≥50% reduction in depression severity based on a standardized scale) and remission rate (defined as a reduction to 7 points on HAM-D, reduction to 9 points on MADRS, and score <8 on SIGH-ADS).
• Four RCTs with a total of 190 participants with bipolar depression were evaluated.

Outcomes

• BLT had a significant effect on response rate (P = .002).
• There was no significant effect of BLT on remission rates (P = .34).
• No studies reported serious adverse effects. Minor effects included headache (14.9% for BLT vs 12.5% for control), irritability (4.26% for BLT vs 2.08% for control), and sleep disturbance (2.13% for BLT vs 2.08% for control). The manic switch rate was 1.1% in BLT vs 1.2% in control.

Conclusion

• BLT is effective in reducing depressive symptoms in bipolar disorder, but does not affect remission rates.
• This meta-analysis was based on a small number of RCTs, and light therapy parameters were inconsistent across the studies. Furthermore, most patients were also being treated with mood-stabilizing or antidepressant medications.
• It is unclear if BLT is effective as monotherapy, rather than as adjunctive therapy.

4. D’Agostino A, Ferrara P, Terzoni S,  et al. Efficacy of triple chronotherapy in unipolar and bipolar depression: a systematic review of available evidence. J Affect Disord. 2020;276:297-304.

Triple chronotherapy is the combination of total sleep deprivation, sleep phase advance, and BLT. D’Agostino et al¹⁵ reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy of triple chronotherapy interventions in treating symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar depression.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase from inception to December 2019 using the terms “depression,” “sleep deprivation,” “chronotherapy,” and related words.
• The review included studies of all execution modalities, sequences of interventions, and types of control groups (eg, active control vs placebo). The population included participants of any age with MDD or bipolar depression.
• Two authors independently screened studies. Six articles published between 2009 and 2019 with a total of 190 patients were included.

Continue to: Outcomes

• All studies reported improvement in HAM-D scores at the end of treatment with triple chronotherapy, with response rates ranging from 50% to 84%.
• Most studies had a short follow-up period (up to 3 weeks). In these studies, response rates ranged from 58.3% to 61.5%. One study that had a 7-week follow-up also reported a statistically significant response rate in favor of triple chronotherapy.
• Remission rates, defined by different cut-offs depending on which version of the HAM-D was used, were evaluated in 5 studies. These rates ranged from 33.3% to 77%.
• Two studies that used the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale to assess the effect of triple chronotherapy on suicide risk reported a significant improvement in scores.

Conclusion

• Triple chronotherapy may be an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for depression. Some studies suggest that it also may play a role in remission from depression and reducing suicide risk.

5. Dallaspezia S, Benedetti F. Antidepressant light therapy for bipolar patients: a meta-analyses. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:943-948.

In a meta-analysis, Dallaspezia and Benedetti¹⁶ evaluated 11 studies to assess the role of BLT for treating depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched literature published on PubMed with the terms “mood disorder,” “depression,” and “light therapy.”
• Eleven studies with a total of 195 participants were included. Five studies were RCTs.
• The primary outcome was severity of depression based on scores on the HAM-D, Beck Depression Inventory, or SIGH-ADS. Secondary outcomes were light intensity (measured in lux) and duration of treatment.

Outcomes

• Analysis of all 11 studies revealed a positive effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• Analysis of just the 5 RCTs found a significant effect of BLT on depressive symptoms (P < .001).
• The switch rate due to BLT was lower than rates for patients being treated with antidepressant monotherapy (15% to 40%) or placebo (4.2%).
• Duration of treatment influenced treatment outcomes (P = .05); a longer duration resulted in the highest clinical effect. However, regardless of duration, BLT showed higher antidepressant effects than placebo.
• Higher light intensity was also found to show greater efficacy.

Continue to: Conclusion

• BLT is an effective adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression.
• Higher light intensity and longer duration of BLT may result in greater antidepressant effects, although the optimum duration and intensity are unknown.
• A significant limitation of this study was that the studies reviewed had high heterogeneity, and only a few were RCTs.

6. Takeshima M, Utsumi T, Aoki Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bright light therapy for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(4):247-256.

Takeshima et al¹⁷ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BLT for manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. They also evaluated if BLT could prevent recurrent mood episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.

Study design

• Researchers searched for studies of BLT for bipolar disorder in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsychInfo, and Clincialtrials.gov using the terms “bipolar disorder,” “phototherapy,” and “randomized controlled trial.”
• Two groups of 2 authors independently screened titles and abstracts for the following inclusion criteria: RCTs, 80% of patients diagnosed clinically with bipolar disorder, any type of light therapy, and control groups that included sham treatment or no light. Three groups of 2 authors then evaluated the quality of the studies and risk of bias.
• Six studies with a total of 280 participants were included.
• Primary outcome measures included rates of remission from depressive or manic episodes, rates of relapse from euthymic states, and changes in score on depression or mania rating scales.

Outcomes

• No significant differences were found between BLT and placebo for rates of remission from depressive episodes (P = .42), rates of manic switching (P = .26), or depressive symptom scores (P = .30).
• Sensitivity analysis for 3 studies with low overall indirectness revealed that BLT did have a significant antidepressant effect (P = .006).
• The most commonly reported adverse effects of BLT were headache (4.7%) and sleep disturbance (1.4%).

Conclusion

• This meta-analysis suggests that BLT does not have a significant antidepressant effect. However, a sensitivity analysis of studies with low overall indirectness showed that BLT does have a significant antidepressant effect.
• This review was based on a small number of RCTs that had inconsistent placebos (dim light, negative ion, no light, etc.) and varying parameters of BLT (light intensity, exposure duration, color of light), which may have contributed to the inconsistent results.

Supportive psychotherapy is a common type of therapy that often is used in combination with other modalities. By focusing on improving symptoms and accepting the patient’s limitations, it is particularly helpful for individuals who might have difficulty engaging in insight-oriented psychotherapies, such as those struggling with external stressors, including exposure to trauma, bereavement, physical disabilities, or socioeconomic challenges. Personal limitations, including severe personality disorder or intellectual disabilities, might also limit a patient’s ability to self-reflect on subconscious issues, which can lead to choosing a supportive modality.

While being supportive in the vernacular sense can be helpful, formal supportive psychotherapy employs well-defined goals and techniques.¹ A therapist can facilitate progress by explicitly referring to these goals and techniques. The acronym ARISE can help therapists and other clinicians to use and appraise therapeutic progress toward these goals.

Alliance-building. The therapeutic alliance is an important predictor of the success of psychotherapy.² Warmly encourage positive transference toward the therapist. The patient’s appreciation of the therapist’s empathic interactions can further the alliance. Paraphrasing the patient’s words can demonstrate and enhance empathy. Doing so allows clarification of the patient’s thoughts and helps the patient feel understood. Formulate and partner around shared therapeutic goals. Monitor the strength of the alliance and intervene if it is threatened. For example, if you misunderstand your patient and inadvertently offend them, apologizing may be helpful. In the face of disagreement between the patient and therapist, reorienting back to shared goals reinforces common ground.

Reduce anxiety and negative affect. In contrast to the caricature of the stiff psychoanalyst, the supportive therapist adopts an engaged conversational style to help the patient feel relaxed and to diminish the power differential between therapist and patient. If the patient appears uncomfortable with silence, maintaining the flow of conversation may reduce discomfort.¹ Minimize your patient’s discomfort by approaching uncomfortable topics in manageable portions. Seek permission before introducing a subject that induces anxiety. Explain the reasoning behind approaching such topics.³ Reassurance and encouragement can further reduce anxiety.⁴ When not incongruous to the discussion, appropriate use of warm affect (eg, a smile) or even humor can elicit positive affect.

Increase awareness. Use psychoeducation and psychological interpretation (whether cognitive-behavioral or psychodynamic) to expand your patient’s awareness and help them understand their social contacts’ point of view. Clarification, gentle confrontation, and interpretation can make patients aware of biopsychosocial precipitants of distress.⁴

Strengthen coping mechanisms. Reinforce adaptive defense mechanisms, such as mature humor or suppression. Educating patients on practical organizational skills, problem-solving, relaxation techniques, and other relevant skills, can help them cope more effectively. Give advice only in limited circumstances, and when doing so, back up your advice with a rationale derived from your professional expertise. Because it is important for patients to realize that their life choices are their own, usually it is best to help the patient understand how they might come to their own decisions rather than to prescribe life choices in the form of advice.

Enhance self-esteem. Many patients in distress suffer from low self-esteem.^5,6 Active encouragement and honest praise can nurture your patient’s ability to correct a distorted self-image and challenge self-reproach. Praise should not be false but reality-based. Praise can address preexisting strengths, highlight the patient’s willingness to express challenging material, or provide reinforcement on progress made toward treatment goals.

Supportive psychotherapy is a common type of therapy that often is used in combination with other modalities. By focusing on improving symptoms and accepting the patient’s limitations, it is particularly helpful for individuals who might have difficulty engaging in insight-oriented psychotherapies, such as those struggling with external stressors, including exposure to trauma, bereavement, physical disabilities, or socioeconomic challenges. Personal limitations, including severe personality disorder or intellectual disabilities, might also limit a patient’s ability to self-reflect on subconscious issues, which can lead to choosing a supportive modality.

While being supportive in the vernacular sense can be helpful, formal supportive psychotherapy employs well-defined goals and techniques.¹ A therapist can facilitate progress by explicitly referring to these goals and techniques. The acronym ARISE can help therapists and other clinicians to use and appraise therapeutic progress toward these goals.

Alliance-building. The therapeutic alliance is an important predictor of the success of psychotherapy.² Warmly encourage positive transference toward the therapist. The patient’s appreciation of the therapist’s empathic interactions can further the alliance. Paraphrasing the patient’s words can demonstrate and enhance empathy. Doing so allows clarification of the patient’s thoughts and helps the patient feel understood. Formulate and partner around shared therapeutic goals. Monitor the strength of the alliance and intervene if it is threatened. For example, if you misunderstand your patient and inadvertently offend them, apologizing may be helpful. In the face of disagreement between the patient and therapist, reorienting back to shared goals reinforces common ground.

Reduce anxiety and negative affect. In contrast to the caricature of the stiff psychoanalyst, the supportive therapist adopts an engaged conversational style to help the patient feel relaxed and to diminish the power differential between therapist and patient. If the patient appears uncomfortable with silence, maintaining the flow of conversation may reduce discomfort.¹ Minimize your patient’s discomfort by approaching uncomfortable topics in manageable portions. Seek permission before introducing a subject that induces anxiety. Explain the reasoning behind approaching such topics.³ Reassurance and encouragement can further reduce anxiety.⁴ When not incongruous to the discussion, appropriate use of warm affect (eg, a smile) or even humor can elicit positive affect.

Increase awareness. Use psychoeducation and psychological interpretation (whether cognitive-behavioral or psychodynamic) to expand your patient’s awareness and help them understand their social contacts’ point of view. Clarification, gentle confrontation, and interpretation can make patients aware of biopsychosocial precipitants of distress.⁴

Strengthen coping mechanisms. Reinforce adaptive defense mechanisms, such as mature humor or suppression. Educating patients on practical organizational skills, problem-solving, relaxation techniques, and other relevant skills, can help them cope more effectively. Give advice only in limited circumstances, and when doing so, back up your advice with a rationale derived from your professional expertise. Because it is important for patients to realize that their life choices are their own, usually it is best to help the patient understand how they might come to their own decisions rather than to prescribe life choices in the form of advice.

Enhance self-esteem. Many patients in distress suffer from low self-esteem.^5,6 Active encouragement and honest praise can nurture your patient’s ability to correct a distorted self-image and challenge self-reproach. Praise should not be false but reality-based. Praise can address preexisting strengths, highlight the patient’s willingness to express challenging material, or provide reinforcement on progress made toward treatment goals.

Supportive psychotherapy is a common type of therapy that often is used in combination with other modalities. By focusing on improving symptoms and accepting the patient’s limitations, it is particularly helpful for individuals who might have difficulty engaging in insight-oriented psychotherapies, such as those struggling with external stressors, including exposure to trauma, bereavement, physical disabilities, or socioeconomic challenges. Personal limitations, including severe personality disorder or intellectual disabilities, might also limit a patient’s ability to self-reflect on subconscious issues, which can lead to choosing a supportive modality.

While being supportive in the vernacular sense can be helpful, formal supportive psychotherapy employs well-defined goals and techniques.¹ A therapist can facilitate progress by explicitly referring to these goals and techniques. The acronym ARISE can help therapists and other clinicians to use and appraise therapeutic progress toward these goals.

Alliance-building. The therapeutic alliance is an important predictor of the success of psychotherapy.² Warmly encourage positive transference toward the therapist. The patient’s appreciation of the therapist’s empathic interactions can further the alliance. Paraphrasing the patient’s words can demonstrate and enhance empathy. Doing so allows clarification of the patient’s thoughts and helps the patient feel understood. Formulate and partner around shared therapeutic goals. Monitor the strength of the alliance and intervene if it is threatened. For example, if you misunderstand your patient and inadvertently offend them, apologizing may be helpful. In the face of disagreement between the patient and therapist, reorienting back to shared goals reinforces common ground.

Reduce anxiety and negative affect. In contrast to the caricature of the stiff psychoanalyst, the supportive therapist adopts an engaged conversational style to help the patient feel relaxed and to diminish the power differential between therapist and patient. If the patient appears uncomfortable with silence, maintaining the flow of conversation may reduce discomfort.¹ Minimize your patient’s discomfort by approaching uncomfortable topics in manageable portions. Seek permission before introducing a subject that induces anxiety. Explain the reasoning behind approaching such topics.³ Reassurance and encouragement can further reduce anxiety.⁴ When not incongruous to the discussion, appropriate use of warm affect (eg, a smile) or even humor can elicit positive affect.

Increase awareness. Use psychoeducation and psychological interpretation (whether cognitive-behavioral or psychodynamic) to expand your patient’s awareness and help them understand their social contacts’ point of view. Clarification, gentle confrontation, and interpretation can make patients aware of biopsychosocial precipitants of distress.⁴

Strengthen coping mechanisms. Reinforce adaptive defense mechanisms, such as mature humor or suppression. Educating patients on practical organizational skills, problem-solving, relaxation techniques, and other relevant skills, can help them cope more effectively. Give advice only in limited circumstances, and when doing so, back up your advice with a rationale derived from your professional expertise. Because it is important for patients to realize that their life choices are their own, usually it is best to help the patient understand how they might come to their own decisions rather than to prescribe life choices in the form of advice.

Enhance self-esteem. Many patients in distress suffer from low self-esteem.^5,6 Active encouragement and honest praise can nurture your patient’s ability to correct a distorted self-image and challenge self-reproach. Praise should not be false but reality-based. Praise can address preexisting strengths, highlight the patient’s willingness to express challenging material, or provide reinforcement on progress made toward treatment goals.