MDedge Psychiatry

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

The Oregon Medical Board has revoked the license of a doctor who didn’t follow COVID-19 guidelines in his office and even told some patients that wearing face masks could lead to carbon-dioxide poisoning.

Steven Arthur LaTulippe’s advice to patients about face masking amounted to “gross negligence” in the practice of medicine and was grounds for discipline, the medical board said in a report.

Mr. LaTulippe, who had a family practice in Dallas, was fined $10,000, Insider reported. The board also said he’d overprescribed opioids for some patients.

The medical board report said Mr. LaTulippe and his wife, who ran the clinic with him, didn’t wear face masks while treating patients from March to December 2020.

Mr. LaTulippe told elderly and pediatric patients that mask wearing could hurt their health by exacerbating COPD and asthma and could contribute to heart attacks and other medical problems, the report said.

“Licensee asserts masks are likely to harm patients by increasing the body’s carbon dioxide content through rebreathing of gas trapped behind a mask,” the report said.

The report noted that “the amount of carbon dioxide rebreathed within a mask is trivial and would easily be expelled by an increase in minute ventilation so small it would not be noticed.”

The report said Mr. LaTulippe told patients they didn’t have to wear a mask in the clinic unless they were “acutely ill,” “coughing,” or “congested,” even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon governor had recommended masks be worn to prevent the spread of the virus.

Before coming into the office, patients weren’t asked if they’d had recent contact with anybody who was infected or showed COVID symptoms, the report said.

The medical board first suspended his license in September. He said he would not change his conduct concerning face masks.

“Licensee has confirmed that he will refuse to abide by the state’s COVID-19 protocols in the future as well, affirming that in a choice between losing his medical license versus wearing a mask in his clinic and requiring his patients and staff to wear a mask in his clinic, he will, ‘choose to sacrifice my medical license with no hesitation’ ” the medical board’s report said.

Mr. LaTulippe told the medical board that he was “a strong asset to the public in educating them on the real facts about this pandemic” and that “at least 98% of my patients were so extremely thankful that I did not wear a mask or demand wearing a mask in my clinic.”

The medical board found Mr. LaTulippe engaged in 8 instances of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, 22 instances of negligence in the practice of medicine, and 5 instances of gross negligence in the practice of medicine.

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

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

Deployments in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and traumatic events such as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks affect everyone, but military personnel and veterans face unique circumstances that can present challenges to treatment. Much progress has been made in recent years in treating people with posttraumatic stress disorder and helping them recover after traumatic events.

asiseeit/Getty Images

To explore some of those changes and challenges, this news organization interviewed Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, who retired from the Army in 2010 after assignments and missions that took her to Korea, Somalia, Iraq, and Cuba, about her approaches to treating soldiers and veterans.

Dr. Ritchie is chief of psychiatry at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, and a professor of psychiatry at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., and at Georgetown University and George Washington University, both in Washington.

She is the author of 250 publications, including the book, “Forensic and Ethical Issues in Military Behavioral Health” (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.: Borden Institute, 2015). In addition, Dr. Ritchie is coeditor of “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Related Diseases in Combat Veterans” (New York: Springer, 2015) and “Psychiatrists in Combat, Clinicians Experience in the War Zone” (New York: Springer, 2017).
 

Question: What are some of the interventions available in the aftermath of traumatic events?

Answer: What we thought the standard of care should be after a traumatic event was to have what’s called a critical incident stress debriefing (CISD). It was basically getting the members of the group who had been traumatized by a school shooting or plane crash, or the Oklahoma City bombing, getting them all together literally a few hours after the event, and having them tell what happened. And the idea is to get it all out. But what we discovered is that this could actually make people worse, because you’d be hearing not only about your own trauma, but other people’s traumas, and that it was too soon for the event.

So prior to 9/11, we had organized a conference, which was held in October 2001, just a month after 9/11. At that conference, we worked on mass violence and early intervention, which is the name of the book that came out from the (National Institute of Mental Health) as a result. It focused on basic principles of safety and security and communication, and knowing where your family was, rather than reliving the trauma. Now, we did think that sometimes you could have a CISD that would be helpful, but only when it was people who knew each other well, like an ED group who would work with each other or soldiers who served together.
 

Q: What was your involvement in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?

A: At the time of 9/11, I was assigned at the Pentagon, but I wasn’t there. When the plane hit, I was actually across the river at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. And then for the next 3 weeks, all I did was work at the Pentagon. We used some of these principles of early intervention but not focusing on telling us what happened right afterward. We focused on how the service members and their families were coping in the here and now, and how they could support each other.

We knew that soldiers would not come out of their offices to go to a therapist. They are too strong for that. So, we did what was called “therapy by walking around.” We went to the service members’ offices.

There was also a Family Assistance Center. That was for the families of the people who died. And that was very helpful because you had all the services there in one place – medical care, mental health care, therapy dogs, massage, the people who collected the DNA to identify remains. You had it in one place, the Sheraton in Crystal City, Va.. That has become a model now, especially for mass transportation fatalities. There are a lot more in the literature about Family Assistance Centers now, mainly formed by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Right after 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq, and we had a lot of soldiers who developed both PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI). One of the good things that the military can do is they can really innovate with both medical treatment and mental health treatment because they don’t have to ask for an insurance company to pay for it. So for some years, starting in about 2004, Congress allocated a large sum of money every year to the Department of Defense to focus on treatment for PTSD and TBI.

And as a result of that, a couple of things happened. One was that the treatments that we had, we were able to study much better, exposure therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy. We were able to do large trials, and then we continued with the use of medications when necessary. There are only two (Food and Drug Administration)–approved medicines for the treatment of PTSD: sertraline and paroxetine, but many others are used.

We also learned what didn’t work and what soldiers would not take. Most of these medications have sexual side effects. If you’re a young, healthy soldier, you really don’t want to be taking something that causes you erectile dysfunction, or in women a loss of libido. So many people wouldn’t take these therapies. As for exposure therapy, if you got into it and completed the program, usually your PTSD symptoms went down. But many people couldn’t complete it. In the exposure therapy, you’re talking about whatever trauma you’ve been through – maybe your best friend died next to you, and you don’t want to talk about that all the time.

When I talk to patients about this, I say the first bucket is medication, the second bucket is therapy, and the third bucket is everything else. And everything else includes meditation, yoga, exercise, and it also involves working with animals. There are programs where you’re paired with a service dog, who helps calm you down, and you feel protected.

One of my favorites is called Warrior Canine Connection, where a soldier with PTSD trains a puppy to become a service animal. And in the training of the dog, you have to learn to control your emotions, you have to modulate your voice, you have to appear calm. Often soldiers have a background that they’re familiar with animals, especially dogs. So that’s been very successful.

A couple of other (treatments) to mention one is called stellate ganglion block, where a little lidocaine is injected into the back of the cervical spine. It was used initially for pain control, and they found that it was actually very helpful for PTSD. Another thing we’ve learned is that pain and PTSD often go hand in hand, because if you’re in pain, you’ll be feeling awful, you won’t sleep well, you’ll have more nightmares. But if you can control both of them together, then that’s going to help.
 

Q: One issue that veterans may face is moral injury. Can you talk about that?

A: Moral injury is a term that was first used after Vietnam. Moral injury is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is feelings of shame and guilt that can be very corrosive and can lead to suicide. It overlaps with PTSD. You feel either you’ve let yourself down, or the government has let you down. And this can be very corrosive. Another thing that could happen is, say, you switched your tour of duty with a buddy, and he got killed and you didn’t. A very common scenario is you’re manning a checkpoint, and a car comes at you and doesn’t stop like it’s supposed to. You do what you’ve been trained to do, which is open fire, and check on the car afterward. And there’s four little kids and their parents in the car all dead. And that is something that even though that was your sort of duty, that it still eats at you because you have kids the same age as the ones who were dead in the car.

You can still have these feelings of shame and guilt, and it will often bleed into your relationships with your family. And that can lead to distance and divorce, which is a further risk factor for suicide.
 

Q: Are there are any specific treatments that have been designed for moral injury, different from PTSD or other conditions?

A: The Armed Services has set up a number of intensive programs at different places, and each is a little bit different. They usually integrate moral injury in with some of the other treatments. There was one at Fort Bliss, Tex., that had reiki; they had art therapy. And they had the chaplains working on moral injury. So there’s no medical treatment for it, but there certainly is talking about it, and for some people to go to a chaplain can be very helpful.

There’s a Military Health System Centers of Excellence, which is a place by the new Walter Reed on the campus, they have a marvelous wall full of masks. And the masks have been painted by soldiers with usually a combination of PTSD, TBI, and although it’s not an official psychiatric diagnosis, moral injury. They’re able to draw and paint. Another thing that’s been used quite a bit as writing therapy, and journaling, and just writing down how you feel about something, because you can do that without retraumatizing anybody else, except perhaps if you are working with a therapist.

Q: For therapists who are treating soldiers, veterans, are there specific challenges that they should be aware of? Are these patients maybe different from the patients that they might otherwise see? Are there specific pieces of advice as to how to engage them?

A: There are a few things that are different. One is that many people in the military are not used to talking about their feelings. And that’s especially if you’ve got a young man who only grunts and says: “Hooah!” That is going to be hard to break through. And that’s why some of these other ways of reaching somebody is very effective. Also, the military likes to have physical activity; they’re usually not comfortable sitting in a chair. If you’re a civilian psychiatrist, I don’t expect you to go bungee jumping with your patients. But what I’d recommend is that you recommend to your patients that they stay active.

Another thing about veterans is that they like to be self-sufficient. They really don’t like to ask for help, although they might ask for help for their buddy. After the Pentagon and 9/11, when I was working with senior officers, they never needed any help. No, but their buddy over here might, so I could help them in the guise of providing care for their buddy in a group setting. We could work with everybody and enhance cohesion, morale, bonding, “we’re all in this together” type of feeling.

I think one thing that’s really improved is that there is less stigma around PTSD. People are more willing to present for help, and some people have called PTSD the Purple Heart of mental disorders. People don’t feel like it’s as bad as having depression or anxiety. Even though PTSD often has depression and anxiety components to it – they run hand in hand – still, it’s sort of more honorable if you’ve been at war and have gotten PTSD.
 

Q: How have you been faring yourself, in the face of the 9/11 anniversary and recent events in Afghanistan?

A: (The Sept. 11 weekend) was very sad for me – and a lot of my colleagues [with] the combination of the 20th anniversary of 9/11, and the recent development. Fortunately, I have friends and people I can talk to. I walked with a colleague of mine who was in the Army. I’m following my own rule of the three buckets, so we took a walk around the hospital center for about 45 minutes, and we have five fish ponds here. And we went and looked at the fish, and talked to the fish. At the National Rehab Hospital, they were playing the guitar. So there’s are a variety of things that people can do.
 

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

COVID-19 has now killed at least 675,000 Americans, a death toll that has surpassed the estimates of the number of Americans who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

Although the raw numbers match, epidemiologists point out that 675,000 deaths in 1918 was a much greater proportion of the population. In 1918, the U.S. population was 105 million, less than one third of what it is today.

The AIDS pandemic of the 1980s remains the deadliest of the 20th Century, claiming the lives of 700,000 Americans. But at our current pace of 2,000 COVID deaths a day, we could quickly eclipse that death toll, too.

Even though the 1918 epidemic is often called the “Spanish Flu,” there is no universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Still, the almost incomprehensible loss harkens back to a time when medicine and technology were far less advanced than they are today.

In 1918, the United States didn’t have access to a vaccine, or near real-time tools to trace the spread and communicate the threat.

In some ways, the United States has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

There are many similarities between the two pandemics. In the spring of 1918, when the first wave of influenza hit, the United States and its allies were nearing victory in Europe in World War I. Just this summer the United States has ended its longest war, the conflict in Afghanistan, as COVID cases surge.

In both pandemics, hospitals and funeral homes were overrun and makeshift clinics were opened where space was available. Mask mandates were installed; schools, churches, and theaters closed; and social distancing was encouraged.

As is the case today, different jurisdictions took different steps to fight the pandemic and some were more successful than others.

According to History.com, in 1918, Philadelphia’s mayor said a popular annual parade could be held, and an estimated 200,000 people attended. In less than 2 weeks, more than 1,000 local residents were dead. But in St. Louis, public gatherings were banned, schools and theaters closed, and the death toll there was one eighth of Philadelphia’s.

Just as in 1918, America has at times continued to fan the flames of the epidemic by relaxing restrictions too quickly and relying on unproven treatments. Poor communication allowed younger people to feel that they wouldn’t necessarily face the worst consequences of the virus, contributing to a false sense of security in the age group that was fueling the spread.

“A lot of the mistakes that we definitely fell into in 1918, we hoped we wouldn’t fall into in 2020,” epidemiologist Stephen Kissler, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told CNN. “We did.”

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

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

“Evidence alone is not sufficient for clinical decision-making, particularly in chronic pain,” said Jason Busse, DC, PhD, director of Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and lead author of a newly released rapid guideline on medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

McMaster University

The recommendations, published online Sept. 9, 2021 in the British Medical Journal, suggest that providers offer patients with chronic pain a trial of noninhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids if standard care or management is ineffective. However, the “weak” rating attached to the recommendation may compel some clinicians to automatically write off the panel’s recommendations.

“Because of the close balance between benefits and harms and wide variability in patient attitudes, the panel came to the conclusion that [some] patients presented with the current best evidence would likely choose to engage in a trial of medicinal cannabis, if their current care was felt to be suboptimal,” Dr. Busse explained in an interview.

But more importantly, “the recommendation allows for shared decision making to occur, and for different patients to make different decisions based on individual preferences and circumstances,” he said.
 

Evidence supports improved pain and sleep quality, physical functioning

Evidence supporting the use of medical cannabis in chronic pain is derived from a rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies enrolling 5,174 patients randomized to oral (capsule, spray, sublingual drops) or topical (transdermal cream) medical cannabis or placebo. Of note, three types of cannabinoids were represented: phytocannabinoids, synthetic, and endocannabinoids.

The studies included both patients with chronic noncancer pain (28 studies, n = 3,812) and chronic cancer pain not receiving palliative care (4 studies, n = 1,362). On average, baseline pain scores were a median 6.28 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), and median participant age was 53 years. 60% of trials reporting sex differences enrolled female participants. Overall, patients were followed for roughly 2 months (median, 50 days).

Findings (27 studies, n = 3,939) showed that, compared with placebo, medical cannabis resulted in a small, albeit important, improvement in the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief at or above the minimally important difference (MID) (moderate-certainty evidence, 10% modeled risk difference [RD; 95% confidence interval, 5%-15%] for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm).

Medical cannabis (15 studies, n = 2,425) also provided a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improvements in physical functioning at or above the MID (high certainty evidence, 4% modeled RD [95% CI, 0.1%-8%] for achieving at least a MID of 10 points).

Additionally, participants experienced significant improvements in sleep quality, compared with placebo (16 studies, 3,124 participants, high-quality evidence), demonstrating a weighted mean difference of –0.53 cm on a 10-cm VAS (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.30 cm). A total of nine larger trials (n = 2,652, high-certainty evidence) saw a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing improved sleep quality at or above the MID: 6% modeled RD (95% CI, 2%-9%).

On the other hand, benefits did not extend to emotional, role, or social functioning (high-certainty evidence).

First do no harm: Start low, go slow

While these findings provide a rationale for medical cannabis in chronic pain, exploring options with patients can be challenging. Studies on medical cannabis consistently note that patients want information, but data also show that many providers express a lack of knowledge to provide adequate counseling.

There are also legal hurdles. Despite the authorization of medicinal cannabis across a majority of states and territories, cannabis is still a schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the absence of standards around formulations, potency, and dosing has also been cited as a major barrier to recommending medical cannabis, as have concerns about adverse events (AEs), especially with inhaled and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-predominant formulations.

Like most medications, medical cannabis dosing should be individualized depending on product, patient, and ability to titrate the dose, but the guidelines provide a general rule of thumb. Providers considering therapeutic noninhaled medical cannabis trials are encouraged to start with a low-dose cannabidiol (CBD) oral tablet, spray, or sublingual oil drops 5 mg twice daily, increasing it by 10 mg every 2-3 days depending on the clinical response (to a maximum daily dose of 40 mg/day). If patient response is unsatisfactory, they should consider adding 1-2.5 mg THC/daily, titrated every 2-7 days to a maximum of 40 mg/day.

Still, an important caveat is whether or not adjunctive CBD alone is effective for chronic pain.

Dr. Ziva Cooper

“While we know that one out of seven U.S. adults are using cannabidiol, we know very little about its therapeutic effects when given by itself for pain,” Ziva Cooper, PhD, director of the Cannabis Research Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an associate professor at-large of psychology and behavioral science, said in an interview. (Dr. Cooper was not involved in the guideline development.)

“But patients tend to self-report that CBD is helpful, and at low doses, we know that it is unlikely to have adverse effects of any significant concern,” Dr. Cooper noted.

Depending on its components, medical cannabis is associated with a wide range of AEs. Studies comprising the evidence base for the guideline reported transient cognitive impairment (relative risk, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.06-5.38), vomiting (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.07-1.99), and drowsiness (RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.95), attention impairment (RR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.67-9.74), and nausea (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99). Of note, findings of a subgroup analysis showed that the risk of dizziness increased with treatment duration, starting at 3 months (test of interaction P = .002).

However, Dr. Cooper explained that, because the included studies were inconsistent in terms of cannabis type (e.g., some looked at synthetic THC or THC-like substances where others looked at a THC/CBD combination) and formulation (capsules, oral mucosal sprays), it’s difficult to tease out component-specific AEs.

“These are really important things to note, especially when you think about different populations that might be using these types of medicines moving forward,” she said.

Toward that end, the guideline specifically states that there is “no reason why the expected benefits would be systematically different among adolescents and emerging adults.”

Among children with cancer, prior study findings reinforce the conclusion that benefits are similar to adults, but studies in this area are limited to end-of-life treatment, childhood cancer with primarily palliative intent, or progressive or relapsed cancer. Because THC’s safety profile is less certain in children, it’s also important to consider adverse neurocognitive effects before initiating a medical cannabis trial in this population.
 

Navigating the landscape

Although promising, the medical cannabis landscape is undoubtedly difficult to navigate, with land mines ranging from a limited inability to simply pick up a prescribing pad to quality control.

With the exception of three Food and Drug Administration–approved products – dronabinol, cannabidiol Rx, and nabilone – U.S. providers are only able to ‘certify,’ not prescribe, medical cannabis for chronic pain, and only if it is included within the state cannabis board’s list of eligible conditions. (A state-by-state guide is available.)

Dr. Jenny Wilkerson

Quality control also varies by product but is critical. “You want to look for certificates of quality assurance,” Jenny Wilkerson, PhD, a research assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview. (Dr. Wilkerson was not involved in the guideline development.)

“A good dispensary should have that information or at least be willing to get that information, but generally speaking, that is something that patients need to ask for,” she emphasized, noting that “most available mass readouts are not divided by lots.”

Initial counseling and AE monitoring and regular follow-up is important, especially among patients who’ve never tried medical cannabis (or older patients whose prior experience may be limited to weaker recreational marijuana).

Notably, the reliance on medical dispensaries to deliver the right information at the right time may prove to be faulty. While recent data show that frontline dispensary workers regularly provide information to customers on their medical conditions and available products, they rarely, if ever, base recommendations on provider input, and never or rarely discuss potential AEs and other risks.

Per the new guideline, inexperienced patients should be seen monthly until a stable dose is achieved; longer times between visits can be considered in those who are more experienced. Still, patients should be advised to contact their provider when pain relief or other goals are insufficient, or when response or problematic AEs occur. This facilitates down-titration to a previously tolerated dose, up-titration in CBD and/or THC, or a different route of administration/formulation altogether.

Dr. Wilkerson pointed out that follow-up visits also provide an opportunity to do a blood draw and ask the lab to conduct pharmacokinetic analysis.

If possible, “ask patients to [ensure that they] take a standard dose before the visit so that the lab can assess the blood percentage of primary compounds and metabolites in the product that they are using,” she explained, noting that the information is helping to determine how “the different ratios may be affecting therapeutic response in individual patients.”

Granted, the guideline is only a start. But it is a good one.

“A lot of physicians want to be able to hang their hat on evidence of the safety and efficacy of these products, and the analysis that was leveraged for this guideline was very rigorous,” Dr. Cooper said.

Not only do they reinforce that “oral cannabinoids can produce small improvements in pain and provide a dosing structure that minimizes risk to the patient, [but they] should be able to help educate physicians who [are looking] for a sense of what the literature tells us at this time,” she added.

“With chronic pain, we often find that different treatments will show small potential benefits and they have a certain risk profile,” Dr. Busse said.

“It’s almost impossible to know what patients think about this option unless you present them with the evidence and ask them to make a decision based on their values and preferences,” he said.

The Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research funded the MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation to support the creation of the guideline. The center receives no funding from industry Dr. Busse, Dr. Cooper, and Dr. Wilkerson reported having no relevant financial relationships.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has suffered from underdiagnosis, in part because not enough clinicians know how to handle patients with BPD. “They don’t have the tools to know how to manage these situations effectively,” Lois W. Choi-Kain, MEd, MD, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said in an interview.

As a result, the clinician avoids the BPD patient, who feels demeaned and never finds the capacity to get better.

Psychiatry training in residency tends to emphasize biomedical treatments and does not focus enough on learning psychotherapy and other psychosocial treatments, according to Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass.

“This is where I see the need for a greater psychotherapy teaching focus in residency, along with teaching of general principles for working with patients with BPD,” said Dr. Plakun.

In his last phase of his career, BPD pioneer John G. Gunderson, MD, worked with Dr. Choi-Kain to train clinicians on general psychiatric management (GPM), which employs a sensitive, nonattacking approach to diffuse and calm situations with BPD patients.

As interest grows in combining GPM with manual treatments, GPM alone offers a more accessible approach for therapist and patient, said Dr. Choi-Kain, who has been trying to promote its use and do research on its techniques.

“It’s trying to boil it down to make it simple,” she said. As much as evidence-based, manualized approaches have advanced the field, they’re just not that widely available, she said.

Orchestrating treatments such as dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy takes a lot of specialization, noted Dr. Choi-Kain. “And because of the amount of work that it involves for both the clinician and the patient, it decreases the capacity that clinicians and systems have to offer treatment to a wider number of patients.”

Learning a manualized treatment for BPD is asking a lot from residents, agreed Dr. Plakun. “Those who want more immersion in treating these patients can pursue further training in residency electives, in postresidency graduate medical education programs or through psychoanalytic training.”

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has suffered from underdiagnosis, in part because not enough clinicians know how to handle patients with BPD. “They don’t have the tools to know how to manage these situations effectively,” Lois W. Choi-Kain, MEd, MD, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said in an interview.

As a result, the clinician avoids the BPD patient, who feels demeaned and never finds the capacity to get better.

Psychiatry training in residency tends to emphasize biomedical treatments and does not focus enough on learning psychotherapy and other psychosocial treatments, according to Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass.

“This is where I see the need for a greater psychotherapy teaching focus in residency, along with teaching of general principles for working with patients with BPD,” said Dr. Plakun.

In his last phase of his career, BPD pioneer John G. Gunderson, MD, worked with Dr. Choi-Kain to train clinicians on general psychiatric management (GPM), which employs a sensitive, nonattacking approach to diffuse and calm situations with BPD patients.

As interest grows in combining GPM with manual treatments, GPM alone offers a more accessible approach for therapist and patient, said Dr. Choi-Kain, who has been trying to promote its use and do research on its techniques.

“It’s trying to boil it down to make it simple,” she said. As much as evidence-based, manualized approaches have advanced the field, they’re just not that widely available, she said.

Orchestrating treatments such as dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy takes a lot of specialization, noted Dr. Choi-Kain. “And because of the amount of work that it involves for both the clinician and the patient, it decreases the capacity that clinicians and systems have to offer treatment to a wider number of patients.”

Learning a manualized treatment for BPD is asking a lot from residents, agreed Dr. Plakun. “Those who want more immersion in treating these patients can pursue further training in residency electives, in postresidency graduate medical education programs or through psychoanalytic training.”

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) has suffered from underdiagnosis, in part because not enough clinicians know how to handle patients with BPD. “They don’t have the tools to know how to manage these situations effectively,” Lois W. Choi-Kain, MEd, MD, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., said in an interview.

As a result, the clinician avoids the BPD patient, who feels demeaned and never finds the capacity to get better.

Psychiatry training in residency tends to emphasize biomedical treatments and does not focus enough on learning psychotherapy and other psychosocial treatments, according to Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass.

“This is where I see the need for a greater psychotherapy teaching focus in residency, along with teaching of general principles for working with patients with BPD,” said Dr. Plakun.

In his last phase of his career, BPD pioneer John G. Gunderson, MD, worked with Dr. Choi-Kain to train clinicians on general psychiatric management (GPM), which employs a sensitive, nonattacking approach to diffuse and calm situations with BPD patients.

As interest grows in combining GPM with manual treatments, GPM alone offers a more accessible approach for therapist and patient, said Dr. Choi-Kain, who has been trying to promote its use and do research on its techniques.

“It’s trying to boil it down to make it simple,” she said. As much as evidence-based, manualized approaches have advanced the field, they’re just not that widely available, she said.

Orchestrating treatments such as dialectical behavior therapy and mentalization-based therapy takes a lot of specialization, noted Dr. Choi-Kain. “And because of the amount of work that it involves for both the clinician and the patient, it decreases the capacity that clinicians and systems have to offer treatment to a wider number of patients.”

Learning a manualized treatment for BPD is asking a lot from residents, agreed Dr. Plakun. “Those who want more immersion in treating these patients can pursue further training in residency electives, in postresidency graduate medical education programs or through psychoanalytic training.”

Michael A. Cummings, MD, has never liked the term “borderline personality disorder” (BPD). In his view, it’s a misnomer and needs to be changed.

“What is it bordering on? It’s not bordering on something, it’s a disorder on its own,” said Dr. Cummings of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD grew out of the concept that patients were bordering on something, perhaps becoming bipolar. “In many ways, I don’t think it is even a personality disorder. It appears to be an inherent temperament that evolves into an inability to regulate mood.”

In his view, this puts it in the category of a mood dysregulation disorder.

Changing the label would not necessarily improve treatment, he added. However, transitioning from a pejorative to a more neutral label could make it easier for people to say, “this is just a type of mood disorder. It’s not necessarily easy, but it’s workable,” said Dr. Cummings.

Others in the field contend that the term fits the condition. BPD “describes how it encompasses a lot of complex psychological difficulties, undermining functioning of patients in a specific way,” said Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass. The disorder was identified because of its relationship with other known psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Choi-Kain. “There’s an element of BPD that borders on mood disorders because moods are so unstable with BPD. It also borders on trauma-related disorders. It borders on psychotic disorders because there’s sometimes stress-induced experiences of losing contact with realistic thinking.”

If anything needs to change, it’s the attitude toward the disorder, not the name. “I don’t think the term itself is pejorative. But I think that associations with the term have been very stigmatizing. For a long time, there was an attitude that these patients could not be treated or had negative therapeutic reactions.”

Data suggest that these patients are highly prevalent in clinical settings. “And I interpret that as them seeking the care that they need rather than resisting care or not responding to care,” said Dr. Choi-Kain.

Michael A. Cummings, MD, has never liked the term “borderline personality disorder” (BPD). In his view, it’s a misnomer and needs to be changed.

“What is it bordering on? It’s not bordering on something, it’s a disorder on its own,” said Dr. Cummings of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD grew out of the concept that patients were bordering on something, perhaps becoming bipolar. “In many ways, I don’t think it is even a personality disorder. It appears to be an inherent temperament that evolves into an inability to regulate mood.”

In his view, this puts it in the category of a mood dysregulation disorder.

Changing the label would not necessarily improve treatment, he added. However, transitioning from a pejorative to a more neutral label could make it easier for people to say, “this is just a type of mood disorder. It’s not necessarily easy, but it’s workable,” said Dr. Cummings.

Others in the field contend that the term fits the condition. BPD “describes how it encompasses a lot of complex psychological difficulties, undermining functioning of patients in a specific way,” said Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass. The disorder was identified because of its relationship with other known psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Choi-Kain. “There’s an element of BPD that borders on mood disorders because moods are so unstable with BPD. It also borders on trauma-related disorders. It borders on psychotic disorders because there’s sometimes stress-induced experiences of losing contact with realistic thinking.”

If anything needs to change, it’s the attitude toward the disorder, not the name. “I don’t think the term itself is pejorative. But I think that associations with the term have been very stigmatizing. For a long time, there was an attitude that these patients could not be treated or had negative therapeutic reactions.”

Data suggest that these patients are highly prevalent in clinical settings. “And I interpret that as them seeking the care that they need rather than resisting care or not responding to care,” said Dr. Choi-Kain.

Michael A. Cummings, MD, has never liked the term “borderline personality disorder” (BPD). In his view, it’s a misnomer and needs to be changed.

“What is it bordering on? It’s not bordering on something, it’s a disorder on its own,” said Dr. Cummings of the department of psychiatry at the University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD grew out of the concept that patients were bordering on something, perhaps becoming bipolar. “In many ways, I don’t think it is even a personality disorder. It appears to be an inherent temperament that evolves into an inability to regulate mood.”

In his view, this puts it in the category of a mood dysregulation disorder.

Changing the label would not necessarily improve treatment, he added. However, transitioning from a pejorative to a more neutral label could make it easier for people to say, “this is just a type of mood disorder. It’s not necessarily easy, but it’s workable,” said Dr. Cummings.

Others in the field contend that the term fits the condition. BPD “describes how it encompasses a lot of complex psychological difficulties, undermining functioning of patients in a specific way,” said Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass. The disorder was identified because of its relationship with other known psychiatric disorders, said Dr. Choi-Kain. “There’s an element of BPD that borders on mood disorders because moods are so unstable with BPD. It also borders on trauma-related disorders. It borders on psychotic disorders because there’s sometimes stress-induced experiences of losing contact with realistic thinking.”

If anything needs to change, it’s the attitude toward the disorder, not the name. “I don’t think the term itself is pejorative. But I think that associations with the term have been very stigmatizing. For a long time, there was an attitude that these patients could not be treated or had negative therapeutic reactions.”

Data suggest that these patients are highly prevalent in clinical settings. “And I interpret that as them seeking the care that they need rather than resisting care or not responding to care,” said Dr. Choi-Kain.

Difficulties associated with treating borderline personality disorder (BPD) make for an uneasy alliance between patient and clinician. Deep-seated anxiety and trust issues often lead to patients skipping visits or raging at those who treat them, leaving clinicians frustrated and ready to give up or relying on a pill to make the patient better.

John M. Oldham, MD, MS, recalls one patient he almost lost, a woman who was struggling with aggressive behavior. Initially cooperative and punctual, the patient gradually became distrustful, grilling Dr. Oldham on his training and credentials. “As the questions continued, she slipped from being very cooperative to being enraged and attacking me,” said Dr. Oldham, Distinguished Emeritus Professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College in Houston.

Dr. Oldham eventually drew her back in by earning her trust. “There’s no magic to this,” he acknowledged. “You try to be as alert and informed and vigilant for anything you say that produces a negative or concerning reaction in the patient.”

This interactive approach to BPD treatment has been gaining traction in a profession that often looks to medications to alleviate specific symptoms. It’s so effective that it sometimes even surprises the patient, Dr. Oldham noted. “When you approach them like this, they can begin to settle down,” which was the case with the female patient he once treated.

About 1.4% of the U.S. population has BPD, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Conceptualized by the late John G. Gunderson, MD, BPD initially was seen as floating on the borderline between psychosis and neurosis. Clinicians now understand that this isn’t the case. The patients need, as Dr. Gunderson once pointed out, constant vigilance because of attachment issues and childhood trauma.

A stable therapeutic alliance between patient and physician, sometimes in combination with evidence-based therapies, is a formula for success, some experts say.
 

A misunderstood condition

Although there is some degree of heritable risk, BPD patients are often the product of an invalidating environment in childhood. “As kids, we’re guided and nurtured by caring adults to provide models of reasonable, trustworthy behavior. If those role models are missing or just so inconsistent and unpredictable, the patient doesn’t end up with a sturdy self-image. Instead, they’re adrift, trying to figure out who will be helpful and be a meaningful, trustworthy companion and adviser,” Dr. Oldham said.

Emotional or affective instability and impulsivity, sometimes impulsive aggression, often characterize their condition. “Brain-imaging studies have revealed that certain nerve pathways that are necessary to regulate emotions are impoverished in patients with BPD,” Dr. Oldham said.

An analogy is a car going too fast, with a runaway engine that’s running too hot – and the brakes don’t work, he added.

“People think these patients are trying to create big drama, that they’re putting on a big show. That’s not accurate,” he continued. These patients don’t have the ability to stop the trigger that leads to their emotional storms. They also don’t have the ability to regulate themselves. “We may say, it’s a beautiful day outside, but I still have to go to work. Someone with BPD may say: It’s a beautiful day; I’m going to the beach,” Dr. Oldham explained.

A person with BPD might sound coherent when arguing with someone else. But their words are driven by the storm they can’t turn off.

This can lead to their own efforts to turn off the intensity. They might become self-injurious or push other people away. It’s one of the ironies of this condition because BPD patients desperately want to trust others but are scared to do so. “They look for any little signal – that someone else will hurt, disappoint, or leave them. Eventually their relationships unravel,” Dr. Oldham saod.

For some, suicide is sometimes a final solution.

Those traits make it difficult for a therapist to connect with a patient. “This is a very difficult group of people to treat and to establish treatment,” said Michael A. Cummings, MD, of the department of psychiatry at University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD patients tend to idealize people who are attempting to help them. When they become frustrated or disappointed in some way, “they then devalue the caregiver or the treatment and not infrequently, fall out of treatment,” Dr. Cummings said. It can be a very taxing experience, particularly for younger, less experienced therapists.
 

Medication only goes so far

Psychiatrists tend to look at BPD patients as receptor sites for molecules, assessing symptoms they can prescribe for, Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Yet, BPD is not a molecular problem, principally. It’s an interpersonal disorder. When BPD is a co-occurring disorder, as is often the case, the depressive, anxiety, or other disorder can mask the BPD, he added, citing his 2018 paper on tensions in psychiatry between the biomedical and biopsychosocial models (Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2018 Jun;41[2]:237-48).

In one longitudinal study (J Pers Disord. 2005 Oct;19[5]:487-504), the presence of BPD strongly predicted the persistence of depression. BPD comorbid with depression is often a recipe for treatment-resistant depression, which results in higher costs, more utilization of resources, and higher suicide rates. Too often, psychiatrists diagnose the depression but miss the BPD. They keep trying molecular approaches with prescription drugs – even though it’s really the interpersonal issues of BPD that need to be addressed, said Dr. Plakun, who is a member of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Psychotherapy Committee, and founder and past leader of the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychotherapy Caucus.

Medication can be helpful as a short-term adjunctive therapy. Long term, it’s not a sustainable approach, said Dr. Oldham. “If a patient is in a particularly stressful period, in the middle of a stormy breakup or having a depressive episode or talking about suicide, a time-limited course of an antidepressant may be helpful,” he said. They could also benefit from an anxiety-related drug or medication to help them sleep.

What you don’t want is for the patient to start relying on medications to help them feel better. The problem is, many are suffering so much that they’ll go to their primary care doctor and say, “I’m suffering from anxiety,” and get an antianxiety drug. Or they’re depressed or in pain and end up with a cocktail of medications. “And that’s just going to make matters worse,” Dr. Oldham said.
 

Psychotherapy as a first-line approach

APA practice guidelines and others worldwide have all come to the same conclusion about BPD. The primary or core treatment for this condition is psychotherapy, said Dr. Oldham, who chaired an APA committee that developed an evidence-based practice guideline for patients with BPD.

Psychotherapy keeps the patient from firing you, he asserted. “Because of the lack of trust, they push away. They’re very scared, and this fear also applies to therapist. The goal is to help the patient learn to trust you. To do that, you need to develop a strong therapeutic alliance.”

In crafting the APA’s practice guideline, Dr. Oldham and his colleagues studied a variety of approaches, including mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), which was developed by Marsha Linehan, PhD. Since then, other approaches have demonstrated efficacy in randomized clinical trials, including schema-based therapy (SBT), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP).

Those treatments might complement the broader goal of establishing a strong alliance with the patient, Dr. Oldham said. Manualized approaches can help prepackage a program that allows clinicians and patients to look at their problems in an objective, nonpejorative way, Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., said in an interview. DBT, for example, focuses on emotion dysregulation. MBT addresses how the patient sees themselves through others and their interactions with others. “It destigmatizes a problem as a clinical entity rather than an interpersonal problem between the patient and the clinician,” Dr. Choi-Kain said.

The choice of approach depends on several factors: the patient’s needs and preferences, and the therapist’s skills and experience, said Dr. Oldham. Some patients don’t do well with DBT because it involves a lot of homework and didactic work. Others do better with TFP because they want to understand what drives their behavior.

Dr. Cummings recalled how one of his patients used TFP to look inward and heal.

He first met the patient when she was in her early 30s. “She had made some progress, but I remember she was still struggling mightily with relationship issues and with identifying her role in relationships,” he said. The patient was becoming increasingly aware that she was going to end up alone and didn’t want that as an outcome.

Adapting to a TFP model, “she worked very hard trying to understand herself as she related to other people, understanding her own emotional volatility, and some of her proneness to behavioral problems,” Dr. Cummings said. The patient also had to learn how to negotiate her relationships to the point where she didn’t end up destroying them and alienating people.
 

Customizing the treatment

Physicians can choose from one of these manualized forms of treatment to see what’s appropriate and what works for the patient. “You can individualize the treatment, borrowing from these approaches and shaping it based on what your patient needs,” Dr. Oldham recommended.

Recently, the field of psychiatry has seen the benefits of combining manualized, evidence-based approaches with general psychiatric management (GPM), a method conceived by Dr. Gunderson. GPM “reflects a sensitive understanding of mental illness, offering ‘non attacking’ or collaborative work with the patient and a sensitive recognition of appropriate interventions or corrections to help the patient stay in treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

It aims to conceptualize BPD in a clinically objective way, medicalizing the disorder so it’s something that the patient has, rather than something he or she is, explained Dr. Choi-Kain, who worked with Dr. Gunderson to train clinicians on using this approach. Using a framework that’s compatible with good medical practices, the clinician tries to define the problem together with the patient, “really assessing whether or not the treatment works, setting goals, managing safety, and trying to promote functioning, something we need to pay more attention to with BPD,” she said.

For these patients, the goal is to have positive, corrective experiences in the real world, reinforcing their hopes and what they’re capable of, and an interface with the world that makes them feel like contributors, she said.

Cycle of rupture and repair

Many people with BPD struggle with the desire to find and feel love, but also deal with their rage and hate. Hence, therapists must prepare themselves for the experience of sometimes being hated, said Dr. Plakun. The patient needs to feel they’re in a safe enough space to express those feelings, activating a cycle of “rupture and repair,” he continued.

The key in working with these patients is to avoid any language that will make them feel attacked or criticized, said Dr. Oldham.

A patient may get furious and say “I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say that.” When in truth, the psychiatrist is flat accurate about what the patient said. Instead of arguing with the patient, a physician can back up and say: “Help me understand what you’re feeling right now. What did I say that made you feel that you couldn’t trust me? Help me understand you. I may have made a mistake,” he advised.

Trust is a key ingredient in an alliance-based intervention for suicidal patients with BPD that Dr. Plakun has frequently written about. A bond he had with a deeply suicidal patient helped her overcome her grief and come to terms with an abusive childhood.

“She had a horrible history of abuse and had BPD and bipolar disorder. Even controlled with medications her life was still awful. She contemplated suicide relentlessly.” Working through her history of sexual abuse, the patient discovered that much of what she and clinicians thought of as a depressive illness was in fact intense grief about the irreparable damage that had taken place during childhood.

Through their work she was able to mourn, and her depression and BPD improved.

Developing a trusting relationship with the patient isn’t a starting point; it’s the goal, he emphasized.

“You don’t prescribe trust to someone. It’s earned.” Through the shared journey of therapy, as the patient suffers from inevitable injuries and ruptures and as the therapist reveals his or her imperfections, opportunities arise to nonjudgmentally examine and repair ruptures. This lead to gains in trust, he said.
 

It’s not just about genes

Many in the psychiatric and psychological communities tend to develop a very nihilistic view of BPD patients, observed Dr. Cummings. “They’ll say: ‘Oh, well, it’s hopeless. There’s nothing that can be done.’ That isn’t true,” he said.

Epidemiologic studies of these individuals have shown that many of these patients no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for BPD by the time they reach middle age. This means they get better over time, noted Dr. Cummings.

Dr. Plakun’s hope is that the field will evolve in a direction that recognizes the importance of psychosocial treatments like psychotherapy, in addition to biomedical treatments. The drive to medicate still exists, which can contribute to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of BPD, he said. “Although there are manualized, evidence-based treatments, few clinicians learn even one of these for BPD, not to mention those for other disorders.”

In 1996, Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, the current director of the National Institutes of Health, predicted that the decoding of the human genome would transform treatment of medical and mental disorders [and] “that we would discover the ways in which genes equal disease,” said Dr. Plakun. What the science has since shown, is genes by environmental interaction lead to disease and health.

Nature and nurture both matter. “And I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the nurture side,” Dr. Plakun said.

The solution is a return to a biopsychosocial model, recognizing that psychotherapy is an essential part of treatment of BPD and other conditions, and an essential clinician skill, he said.

Dr. Oldham is coeditor of the “Textbook of Personality Disorders”, 3rd edition (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2021).Dr. Choi-Kain is coeditor with Dr. Gunderson of “Applications of Good Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Practical Guide” (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019).

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Plakun had no disclosures.

Difficulties associated with treating borderline personality disorder (BPD) make for an uneasy alliance between patient and clinician. Deep-seated anxiety and trust issues often lead to patients skipping visits or raging at those who treat them, leaving clinicians frustrated and ready to give up or relying on a pill to make the patient better.

John M. Oldham, MD, MS, recalls one patient he almost lost, a woman who was struggling with aggressive behavior. Initially cooperative and punctual, the patient gradually became distrustful, grilling Dr. Oldham on his training and credentials. “As the questions continued, she slipped from being very cooperative to being enraged and attacking me,” said Dr. Oldham, Distinguished Emeritus Professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College in Houston.

Dr. Oldham eventually drew her back in by earning her trust. “There’s no magic to this,” he acknowledged. “You try to be as alert and informed and vigilant for anything you say that produces a negative or concerning reaction in the patient.”

This interactive approach to BPD treatment has been gaining traction in a profession that often looks to medications to alleviate specific symptoms. It’s so effective that it sometimes even surprises the patient, Dr. Oldham noted. “When you approach them like this, they can begin to settle down,” which was the case with the female patient he once treated.

About 1.4% of the U.S. population has BPD, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Conceptualized by the late John G. Gunderson, MD, BPD initially was seen as floating on the borderline between psychosis and neurosis. Clinicians now understand that this isn’t the case. The patients need, as Dr. Gunderson once pointed out, constant vigilance because of attachment issues and childhood trauma.

A stable therapeutic alliance between patient and physician, sometimes in combination with evidence-based therapies, is a formula for success, some experts say.
 

A misunderstood condition

Although there is some degree of heritable risk, BPD patients are often the product of an invalidating environment in childhood. “As kids, we’re guided and nurtured by caring adults to provide models of reasonable, trustworthy behavior. If those role models are missing or just so inconsistent and unpredictable, the patient doesn’t end up with a sturdy self-image. Instead, they’re adrift, trying to figure out who will be helpful and be a meaningful, trustworthy companion and adviser,” Dr. Oldham said.

Emotional or affective instability and impulsivity, sometimes impulsive aggression, often characterize their condition. “Brain-imaging studies have revealed that certain nerve pathways that are necessary to regulate emotions are impoverished in patients with BPD,” Dr. Oldham said.

An analogy is a car going too fast, with a runaway engine that’s running too hot – and the brakes don’t work, he added.

“People think these patients are trying to create big drama, that they’re putting on a big show. That’s not accurate,” he continued. These patients don’t have the ability to stop the trigger that leads to their emotional storms. They also don’t have the ability to regulate themselves. “We may say, it’s a beautiful day outside, but I still have to go to work. Someone with BPD may say: It’s a beautiful day; I’m going to the beach,” Dr. Oldham explained.

A person with BPD might sound coherent when arguing with someone else. But their words are driven by the storm they can’t turn off.

This can lead to their own efforts to turn off the intensity. They might become self-injurious or push other people away. It’s one of the ironies of this condition because BPD patients desperately want to trust others but are scared to do so. “They look for any little signal – that someone else will hurt, disappoint, or leave them. Eventually their relationships unravel,” Dr. Oldham saod.

For some, suicide is sometimes a final solution.

Those traits make it difficult for a therapist to connect with a patient. “This is a very difficult group of people to treat and to establish treatment,” said Michael A. Cummings, MD, of the department of psychiatry at University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD patients tend to idealize people who are attempting to help them. When they become frustrated or disappointed in some way, “they then devalue the caregiver or the treatment and not infrequently, fall out of treatment,” Dr. Cummings said. It can be a very taxing experience, particularly for younger, less experienced therapists.
 

Medication only goes so far

Psychiatrists tend to look at BPD patients as receptor sites for molecules, assessing symptoms they can prescribe for, Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Yet, BPD is not a molecular problem, principally. It’s an interpersonal disorder. When BPD is a co-occurring disorder, as is often the case, the depressive, anxiety, or other disorder can mask the BPD, he added, citing his 2018 paper on tensions in psychiatry between the biomedical and biopsychosocial models (Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2018 Jun;41[2]:237-48).

In one longitudinal study (J Pers Disord. 2005 Oct;19[5]:487-504), the presence of BPD strongly predicted the persistence of depression. BPD comorbid with depression is often a recipe for treatment-resistant depression, which results in higher costs, more utilization of resources, and higher suicide rates. Too often, psychiatrists diagnose the depression but miss the BPD. They keep trying molecular approaches with prescription drugs – even though it’s really the interpersonal issues of BPD that need to be addressed, said Dr. Plakun, who is a member of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Psychotherapy Committee, and founder and past leader of the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychotherapy Caucus.

Medication can be helpful as a short-term adjunctive therapy. Long term, it’s not a sustainable approach, said Dr. Oldham. “If a patient is in a particularly stressful period, in the middle of a stormy breakup or having a depressive episode or talking about suicide, a time-limited course of an antidepressant may be helpful,” he said. They could also benefit from an anxiety-related drug or medication to help them sleep.

What you don’t want is for the patient to start relying on medications to help them feel better. The problem is, many are suffering so much that they’ll go to their primary care doctor and say, “I’m suffering from anxiety,” and get an antianxiety drug. Or they’re depressed or in pain and end up with a cocktail of medications. “And that’s just going to make matters worse,” Dr. Oldham said.
 

Psychotherapy as a first-line approach

APA practice guidelines and others worldwide have all come to the same conclusion about BPD. The primary or core treatment for this condition is psychotherapy, said Dr. Oldham, who chaired an APA committee that developed an evidence-based practice guideline for patients with BPD.

Psychotherapy keeps the patient from firing you, he asserted. “Because of the lack of trust, they push away. They’re very scared, and this fear also applies to therapist. The goal is to help the patient learn to trust you. To do that, you need to develop a strong therapeutic alliance.”

In crafting the APA’s practice guideline, Dr. Oldham and his colleagues studied a variety of approaches, including mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), which was developed by Marsha Linehan, PhD. Since then, other approaches have demonstrated efficacy in randomized clinical trials, including schema-based therapy (SBT), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP).

Those treatments might complement the broader goal of establishing a strong alliance with the patient, Dr. Oldham said. Manualized approaches can help prepackage a program that allows clinicians and patients to look at their problems in an objective, nonpejorative way, Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., said in an interview. DBT, for example, focuses on emotion dysregulation. MBT addresses how the patient sees themselves through others and their interactions with others. “It destigmatizes a problem as a clinical entity rather than an interpersonal problem between the patient and the clinician,” Dr. Choi-Kain said.

The choice of approach depends on several factors: the patient’s needs and preferences, and the therapist’s skills and experience, said Dr. Oldham. Some patients don’t do well with DBT because it involves a lot of homework and didactic work. Others do better with TFP because they want to understand what drives their behavior.

Dr. Cummings recalled how one of his patients used TFP to look inward and heal.

He first met the patient when she was in her early 30s. “She had made some progress, but I remember she was still struggling mightily with relationship issues and with identifying her role in relationships,” he said. The patient was becoming increasingly aware that she was going to end up alone and didn’t want that as an outcome.

Adapting to a TFP model, “she worked very hard trying to understand herself as she related to other people, understanding her own emotional volatility, and some of her proneness to behavioral problems,” Dr. Cummings said. The patient also had to learn how to negotiate her relationships to the point where she didn’t end up destroying them and alienating people.
 

Customizing the treatment

Physicians can choose from one of these manualized forms of treatment to see what’s appropriate and what works for the patient. “You can individualize the treatment, borrowing from these approaches and shaping it based on what your patient needs,” Dr. Oldham recommended.

Recently, the field of psychiatry has seen the benefits of combining manualized, evidence-based approaches with general psychiatric management (GPM), a method conceived by Dr. Gunderson. GPM “reflects a sensitive understanding of mental illness, offering ‘non attacking’ or collaborative work with the patient and a sensitive recognition of appropriate interventions or corrections to help the patient stay in treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

It aims to conceptualize BPD in a clinically objective way, medicalizing the disorder so it’s something that the patient has, rather than something he or she is, explained Dr. Choi-Kain, who worked with Dr. Gunderson to train clinicians on using this approach. Using a framework that’s compatible with good medical practices, the clinician tries to define the problem together with the patient, “really assessing whether or not the treatment works, setting goals, managing safety, and trying to promote functioning, something we need to pay more attention to with BPD,” she said.

For these patients, the goal is to have positive, corrective experiences in the real world, reinforcing their hopes and what they’re capable of, and an interface with the world that makes them feel like contributors, she said.

Cycle of rupture and repair

Many people with BPD struggle with the desire to find and feel love, but also deal with their rage and hate. Hence, therapists must prepare themselves for the experience of sometimes being hated, said Dr. Plakun. The patient needs to feel they’re in a safe enough space to express those feelings, activating a cycle of “rupture and repair,” he continued.

The key in working with these patients is to avoid any language that will make them feel attacked or criticized, said Dr. Oldham.

A patient may get furious and say “I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say that.” When in truth, the psychiatrist is flat accurate about what the patient said. Instead of arguing with the patient, a physician can back up and say: “Help me understand what you’re feeling right now. What did I say that made you feel that you couldn’t trust me? Help me understand you. I may have made a mistake,” he advised.

Trust is a key ingredient in an alliance-based intervention for suicidal patients with BPD that Dr. Plakun has frequently written about. A bond he had with a deeply suicidal patient helped her overcome her grief and come to terms with an abusive childhood.

“She had a horrible history of abuse and had BPD and bipolar disorder. Even controlled with medications her life was still awful. She contemplated suicide relentlessly.” Working through her history of sexual abuse, the patient discovered that much of what she and clinicians thought of as a depressive illness was in fact intense grief about the irreparable damage that had taken place during childhood.

Through their work she was able to mourn, and her depression and BPD improved.

Developing a trusting relationship with the patient isn’t a starting point; it’s the goal, he emphasized.

“You don’t prescribe trust to someone. It’s earned.” Through the shared journey of therapy, as the patient suffers from inevitable injuries and ruptures and as the therapist reveals his or her imperfections, opportunities arise to nonjudgmentally examine and repair ruptures. This lead to gains in trust, he said.
 

It’s not just about genes

Many in the psychiatric and psychological communities tend to develop a very nihilistic view of BPD patients, observed Dr. Cummings. “They’ll say: ‘Oh, well, it’s hopeless. There’s nothing that can be done.’ That isn’t true,” he said.

Epidemiologic studies of these individuals have shown that many of these patients no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for BPD by the time they reach middle age. This means they get better over time, noted Dr. Cummings.

Dr. Plakun’s hope is that the field will evolve in a direction that recognizes the importance of psychosocial treatments like psychotherapy, in addition to biomedical treatments. The drive to medicate still exists, which can contribute to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of BPD, he said. “Although there are manualized, evidence-based treatments, few clinicians learn even one of these for BPD, not to mention those for other disorders.”

In 1996, Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, the current director of the National Institutes of Health, predicted that the decoding of the human genome would transform treatment of medical and mental disorders [and] “that we would discover the ways in which genes equal disease,” said Dr. Plakun. What the science has since shown, is genes by environmental interaction lead to disease and health.

Nature and nurture both matter. “And I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the nurture side,” Dr. Plakun said.

The solution is a return to a biopsychosocial model, recognizing that psychotherapy is an essential part of treatment of BPD and other conditions, and an essential clinician skill, he said.

Dr. Oldham is coeditor of the “Textbook of Personality Disorders”, 3rd edition (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2021).Dr. Choi-Kain is coeditor with Dr. Gunderson of “Applications of Good Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Practical Guide” (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019).

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Plakun had no disclosures.

Difficulties associated with treating borderline personality disorder (BPD) make for an uneasy alliance between patient and clinician. Deep-seated anxiety and trust issues often lead to patients skipping visits or raging at those who treat them, leaving clinicians frustrated and ready to give up or relying on a pill to make the patient better.

John M. Oldham, MD, MS, recalls one patient he almost lost, a woman who was struggling with aggressive behavior. Initially cooperative and punctual, the patient gradually became distrustful, grilling Dr. Oldham on his training and credentials. “As the questions continued, she slipped from being very cooperative to being enraged and attacking me,” said Dr. Oldham, Distinguished Emeritus Professor in the Menninger department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College in Houston.

Dr. Oldham eventually drew her back in by earning her trust. “There’s no magic to this,” he acknowledged. “You try to be as alert and informed and vigilant for anything you say that produces a negative or concerning reaction in the patient.”

This interactive approach to BPD treatment has been gaining traction in a profession that often looks to medications to alleviate specific symptoms. It’s so effective that it sometimes even surprises the patient, Dr. Oldham noted. “When you approach them like this, they can begin to settle down,” which was the case with the female patient he once treated.

About 1.4% of the U.S. population has BPD, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Conceptualized by the late John G. Gunderson, MD, BPD initially was seen as floating on the borderline between psychosis and neurosis. Clinicians now understand that this isn’t the case. The patients need, as Dr. Gunderson once pointed out, constant vigilance because of attachment issues and childhood trauma.

A stable therapeutic alliance between patient and physician, sometimes in combination with evidence-based therapies, is a formula for success, some experts say.
 

A misunderstood condition

Although there is some degree of heritable risk, BPD patients are often the product of an invalidating environment in childhood. “As kids, we’re guided and nurtured by caring adults to provide models of reasonable, trustworthy behavior. If those role models are missing or just so inconsistent and unpredictable, the patient doesn’t end up with a sturdy self-image. Instead, they’re adrift, trying to figure out who will be helpful and be a meaningful, trustworthy companion and adviser,” Dr. Oldham said.

Emotional or affective instability and impulsivity, sometimes impulsive aggression, often characterize their condition. “Brain-imaging studies have revealed that certain nerve pathways that are necessary to regulate emotions are impoverished in patients with BPD,” Dr. Oldham said.

An analogy is a car going too fast, with a runaway engine that’s running too hot – and the brakes don’t work, he added.

“People think these patients are trying to create big drama, that they’re putting on a big show. That’s not accurate,” he continued. These patients don’t have the ability to stop the trigger that leads to their emotional storms. They also don’t have the ability to regulate themselves. “We may say, it’s a beautiful day outside, but I still have to go to work. Someone with BPD may say: It’s a beautiful day; I’m going to the beach,” Dr. Oldham explained.

A person with BPD might sound coherent when arguing with someone else. But their words are driven by the storm they can’t turn off.

This can lead to their own efforts to turn off the intensity. They might become self-injurious or push other people away. It’s one of the ironies of this condition because BPD patients desperately want to trust others but are scared to do so. “They look for any little signal – that someone else will hurt, disappoint, or leave them. Eventually their relationships unravel,” Dr. Oldham saod.

For some, suicide is sometimes a final solution.

Those traits make it difficult for a therapist to connect with a patient. “This is a very difficult group of people to treat and to establish treatment,” said Michael A. Cummings, MD, of the department of psychiatry at University of California, Riverside, and a psychopharmacology consultant with the California Department of State Hospitals’ Psychopharmacology Resource Network.

BPD patients tend to idealize people who are attempting to help them. When they become frustrated or disappointed in some way, “they then devalue the caregiver or the treatment and not infrequently, fall out of treatment,” Dr. Cummings said. It can be a very taxing experience, particularly for younger, less experienced therapists.
 

Medication only goes so far

Psychiatrists tend to look at BPD patients as receptor sites for molecules, assessing symptoms they can prescribe for, Eric M. Plakun, MD, DLFAPA, FACPsych, medical director/CEO of the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Mass., said in an interview.

Yet, BPD is not a molecular problem, principally. It’s an interpersonal disorder. When BPD is a co-occurring disorder, as is often the case, the depressive, anxiety, or other disorder can mask the BPD, he added, citing his 2018 paper on tensions in psychiatry between the biomedical and biopsychosocial models (Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2018 Jun;41[2]:237-48).

In one longitudinal study (J Pers Disord. 2005 Oct;19[5]:487-504), the presence of BPD strongly predicted the persistence of depression. BPD comorbid with depression is often a recipe for treatment-resistant depression, which results in higher costs, more utilization of resources, and higher suicide rates. Too often, psychiatrists diagnose the depression but miss the BPD. They keep trying molecular approaches with prescription drugs – even though it’s really the interpersonal issues of BPD that need to be addressed, said Dr. Plakun, who is a member of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Psychotherapy Committee, and founder and past leader of the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychotherapy Caucus.

Medication can be helpful as a short-term adjunctive therapy. Long term, it’s not a sustainable approach, said Dr. Oldham. “If a patient is in a particularly stressful period, in the middle of a stormy breakup or having a depressive episode or talking about suicide, a time-limited course of an antidepressant may be helpful,” he said. They could also benefit from an anxiety-related drug or medication to help them sleep.

What you don’t want is for the patient to start relying on medications to help them feel better. The problem is, many are suffering so much that they’ll go to their primary care doctor and say, “I’m suffering from anxiety,” and get an antianxiety drug. Or they’re depressed or in pain and end up with a cocktail of medications. “And that’s just going to make matters worse,” Dr. Oldham said.
 

Psychotherapy as a first-line approach

APA practice guidelines and others worldwide have all come to the same conclusion about BPD. The primary or core treatment for this condition is psychotherapy, said Dr. Oldham, who chaired an APA committee that developed an evidence-based practice guideline for patients with BPD.

Psychotherapy keeps the patient from firing you, he asserted. “Because of the lack of trust, they push away. They’re very scared, and this fear also applies to therapist. The goal is to help the patient learn to trust you. To do that, you need to develop a strong therapeutic alliance.”

In crafting the APA’s practice guideline, Dr. Oldham and his colleagues studied a variety of approaches, including mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), which was developed by Marsha Linehan, PhD. Since then, other approaches have demonstrated efficacy in randomized clinical trials, including schema-based therapy (SBT), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP).

Those treatments might complement the broader goal of establishing a strong alliance with the patient, Dr. Oldham said. Manualized approaches can help prepackage a program that allows clinicians and patients to look at their problems in an objective, nonpejorative way, Lois W. Choi-Kain, MD, MEd, director of the Gunderson Personality Disorders Institute at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., said in an interview. DBT, for example, focuses on emotion dysregulation. MBT addresses how the patient sees themselves through others and their interactions with others. “It destigmatizes a problem as a clinical entity rather than an interpersonal problem between the patient and the clinician,” Dr. Choi-Kain said.

The choice of approach depends on several factors: the patient’s needs and preferences, and the therapist’s skills and experience, said Dr. Oldham. Some patients don’t do well with DBT because it involves a lot of homework and didactic work. Others do better with TFP because they want to understand what drives their behavior.

Dr. Cummings recalled how one of his patients used TFP to look inward and heal.

He first met the patient when she was in her early 30s. “She had made some progress, but I remember she was still struggling mightily with relationship issues and with identifying her role in relationships,” he said. The patient was becoming increasingly aware that she was going to end up alone and didn’t want that as an outcome.

Adapting to a TFP model, “she worked very hard trying to understand herself as she related to other people, understanding her own emotional volatility, and some of her proneness to behavioral problems,” Dr. Cummings said. The patient also had to learn how to negotiate her relationships to the point where she didn’t end up destroying them and alienating people.
 

Customizing the treatment

Physicians can choose from one of these manualized forms of treatment to see what’s appropriate and what works for the patient. “You can individualize the treatment, borrowing from these approaches and shaping it based on what your patient needs,” Dr. Oldham recommended.

Recently, the field of psychiatry has seen the benefits of combining manualized, evidence-based approaches with general psychiatric management (GPM), a method conceived by Dr. Gunderson. GPM “reflects a sensitive understanding of mental illness, offering ‘non attacking’ or collaborative work with the patient and a sensitive recognition of appropriate interventions or corrections to help the patient stay in treatment,” said Dr. Oldham.

It aims to conceptualize BPD in a clinically objective way, medicalizing the disorder so it’s something that the patient has, rather than something he or she is, explained Dr. Choi-Kain, who worked with Dr. Gunderson to train clinicians on using this approach. Using a framework that’s compatible with good medical practices, the clinician tries to define the problem together with the patient, “really assessing whether or not the treatment works, setting goals, managing safety, and trying to promote functioning, something we need to pay more attention to with BPD,” she said.

For these patients, the goal is to have positive, corrective experiences in the real world, reinforcing their hopes and what they’re capable of, and an interface with the world that makes them feel like contributors, she said.

Cycle of rupture and repair

Many people with BPD struggle with the desire to find and feel love, but also deal with their rage and hate. Hence, therapists must prepare themselves for the experience of sometimes being hated, said Dr. Plakun. The patient needs to feel they’re in a safe enough space to express those feelings, activating a cycle of “rupture and repair,” he continued.

The key in working with these patients is to avoid any language that will make them feel attacked or criticized, said Dr. Oldham.

A patient may get furious and say “I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say that.” When in truth, the psychiatrist is flat accurate about what the patient said. Instead of arguing with the patient, a physician can back up and say: “Help me understand what you’re feeling right now. What did I say that made you feel that you couldn’t trust me? Help me understand you. I may have made a mistake,” he advised.

Trust is a key ingredient in an alliance-based intervention for suicidal patients with BPD that Dr. Plakun has frequently written about. A bond he had with a deeply suicidal patient helped her overcome her grief and come to terms with an abusive childhood.

“She had a horrible history of abuse and had BPD and bipolar disorder. Even controlled with medications her life was still awful. She contemplated suicide relentlessly.” Working through her history of sexual abuse, the patient discovered that much of what she and clinicians thought of as a depressive illness was in fact intense grief about the irreparable damage that had taken place during childhood.

Through their work she was able to mourn, and her depression and BPD improved.

Developing a trusting relationship with the patient isn’t a starting point; it’s the goal, he emphasized.

“You don’t prescribe trust to someone. It’s earned.” Through the shared journey of therapy, as the patient suffers from inevitable injuries and ruptures and as the therapist reveals his or her imperfections, opportunities arise to nonjudgmentally examine and repair ruptures. This lead to gains in trust, he said.
 

It’s not just about genes

Many in the psychiatric and psychological communities tend to develop a very nihilistic view of BPD patients, observed Dr. Cummings. “They’ll say: ‘Oh, well, it’s hopeless. There’s nothing that can be done.’ That isn’t true,” he said.

Epidemiologic studies of these individuals have shown that many of these patients no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for BPD by the time they reach middle age. This means they get better over time, noted Dr. Cummings.

Dr. Plakun’s hope is that the field will evolve in a direction that recognizes the importance of psychosocial treatments like psychotherapy, in addition to biomedical treatments. The drive to medicate still exists, which can contribute to underdiagnosis and undertreatment of BPD, he said. “Although there are manualized, evidence-based treatments, few clinicians learn even one of these for BPD, not to mention those for other disorders.”

In 1996, Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, the current director of the National Institutes of Health, predicted that the decoding of the human genome would transform treatment of medical and mental disorders [and] “that we would discover the ways in which genes equal disease,” said Dr. Plakun. What the science has since shown, is genes by environmental interaction lead to disease and health.

Nature and nurture both matter. “And I don’t think we’re paying enough attention to the nurture side,” Dr. Plakun said.

The solution is a return to a biopsychosocial model, recognizing that psychotherapy is an essential part of treatment of BPD and other conditions, and an essential clinician skill, he said.

Dr. Oldham is coeditor of the “Textbook of Personality Disorders”, 3rd edition (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2021).Dr. Choi-Kain is coeditor with Dr. Gunderson of “Applications of Good Psychiatric Management for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Practical Guide” (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019).

Dr. Cummings and Dr. Plakun had no disclosures.

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

A nationwide study of more than 3,600 adults found the Moderna vaccine does a better job at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations than the two other vaccines being used in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Protection has said.

“Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–Aug. 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%),” the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report said. Janssen refers to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC said the data could help people make informed decisions.

“Understanding differences in VE [vaccine effectiveness] by vaccine product can guide individual choices and policy recommendations regarding vaccine boosters. All Food and Drug Administration–approved or authorized COVID-19 vaccines provide substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization,” the report said.

The study also broke down effectiveness for longer periods. Moderna came out on top again.

After 120 days, the Moderna vaccine provided 92% effectiveness against hospitalization, whereas the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropped to 77%, the CDC said. There was no similar calculation for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The CDC studied 3,689 adults at 21 hospitals in 18 states who got the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or the one-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine between March and August.

The agency noted some factors that could have come into play.

“Differences in vaccine effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine might be due to higher mRNA content in the Moderna vaccine, differences in timing between doses (3 weeks for Pfizer-BioNTech vs. 4 weeks for Moderna), or possible differences between groups that received each vaccine that were not accounted for in the analysis,” the report said.

The CDC noted limitations in the findings. Children, immunocompromised adults, and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 that did not result in hospitalization were not studied.

Other studies have shown all three U.S. vaccines provide a high rate of protection against coronavirus.

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

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

One-year-olds who received a parent-led intervention targeting early signs of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) had significantly reduced symptoms and chances of an autism diagnosis at age 3 years, in a new study.

These findings, which were published in JAMA Pediatrics, were the first evidence worldwide that a preemptive intervention during infancy could lead to such a significant improvement in children’s social development, resulting in “three times fewer diagnoses of autism at age 3,” said lead author Andrew Whitehouse, PhD, in a statement.

“No trial of a preemptive infant intervention, applied prior to diagnosis, has to date shown such an effect to impact diagnostic outcomes – until now,” he said.
 

Study intervention is a nontraditonal approach

Dr. Whitehouse, who is professor of Autism Research at Telethon Kids and University of Western Australia, and Director of CliniKids in Perth, said the intervention is a departure from traditional approaches. “Traditionally, therapy seeks to train children to learn ‘typical’ behaviors,” he said in an email. “The difference of this therapy is that we help parents understand the unique abilities of their baby, and to use these strengths as a foundation for future development.”

Dr. Whitehouse’s study included 103 children (aged approximately 12 months), who displayed at least three of five behaviors indicating a high likelihood of ASD as defined by the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) 12-month checklist. The infants were randomized to receive either usual care or the intervention, which is called the iBASIS–Video Interaction to Promote Positive Parenting (iBASIS-VIPP). Usual care was delivered by community physicians, whereas the intervention involved 10 sessions delivered at home by a trained therapist.

“The iBASIS-VIPP uses video-feedback as a means of helping parents recognize their baby’s communication cues so they can respond in a way that builds their social communication development,” Dr. Whitehouse explained in an interview. “The therapist then provides guidance to the parent as to how their baby is communicating with them, and they can communicate back to have back-and-forth conversations.”

“We know these back-and-forth conversations are crucial to support early social communication development, and are a precursor to more complex skills, such as verbal language,” he added.

Reassessment of the children at age 3 years showed a “small but enduring” benefit of the intervention, noted the authors. Children in the intervention group had a reduction in ASD symptom severity (P = .04), and reduced odds of ASD classification, compared with children receiving usual care (6.7% vs. 20.5%; odds ratio, 0.18; P = .02).

The findings provide “initial evidence of efficacy for a new clinical model that uses a specific developmentally focused intervention,” noted the authors. “The children falling below the diagnostic threshold still had developmental difficulties, but by working with each child’s unique differences, rather than trying to counter them, the therapy has effectively supported their development through the early childhood years,” noted Dr. Whitehouse in a statement.
 

Other research has shown benefits of new study approach

This is a “solid” study, “but, as acknowledged by the authors, the main effects are small in magnitude, and longer-term outcomes will be important to capture,” said Jessica Brian, PhD, C Psych, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, colead at the Autism Research Centre, and psychologist and clinician-investigator at Holland Bloorview Kids Rehab Hospital in Toronto.

Dr. Brian said she and her coauthors of a paper published in Autism Research and others have shown that the kind of approach used in the new study can be helpful for enhancing different areas of toddler development, but “the specific finding of reduced likelihood of a clinical ASD diagnosis is a bit different.”

The goal of reducing the likelihood of an ASD diagnosis “needs to be considered carefully, from the perspective of autism acceptance,” she added. “From an acceptance lens, the primary objective of early intervention in ASD might be better positioned as aiming to enhance or support a young child’s development, help them make developmental progress, build on their strengths, optimize outcomes, or reduce impairment. … I think the authors do a good job of balancing this perspective.”
 

New study shows value of parent-mediated interventions

Overall, Dr. Brian, who coauthored the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement on ASD diagnosis, lauded the findings as good news.

“It shows the value of using parent-mediated interventions, which are far less costly and are more resource-efficient than most therapist-delivered models.”

“In cases where parent-mediated approaches are made available to families prior to diagnosis, there is potential for strong effects, when the brain is most amenable to learning. Such models may also be an ideal fit before diagnosis, since they are less resource-intensive than therapist-delivered models, which may only be funded by governments once a diagnosis is confirmed,” she said.

“Finally, parent-mediated programs have the potential to support parents during what, for many families, is a particularly challenging time as they identify their child’s developmental differences or receive a diagnosis. Such programs have potential to increase parents’ confidence in parenting a young child with unique learning needs.”

What Dr. Brian thought was missing from the paper was acknowledgment that, “despite early developmental gains from parent-mediated interventions, it is likely that most children with ASD will need additional supports throughout development.”

This study was sponsored by the Telethon Kids Institute. Dr. Whitehouse reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brian codeveloped a parent-mediated intervention for toddlers with probable or confirmed ASD (the Social ABCs), for which she does not receive any royalties.

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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

Opioid-related drug overdose deaths in the United States exploded to an estimated record high of 69,031 people in 2020, topping the 49,860 deaths logged in 2019, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most of the deaths involved synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

President Joe Biden has pledged more than $10 billion to expand access to prevention, treatment, and recovery services. The money is important as people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder have a high risk for relapse, and that means a high risk for opioid overdose.

Now, researchers are studying a possible bridge to successful recovery: A vaccine that could blunt the drugs’ ability to cause harm.

The first such vaccines are now entering clinical trials, raising hopes of adding another tool to the antiaddiction armamentarium. But even if the vaccines prove safe and effective, their success could generate some new problems to solve.

An advantage of vaccines is that their effects can last for several months, said trial investigator Sandra Comer, PhD, professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York. Dropout rates for existing medical therapies for opioid use disorder are as high as 50% at 6 months, and a vaccine could protect people from overdose and give them time to re-enter treatment.

“It serves as a bit of a safety net,” she said.

The first vaccine to enter a trial targets oxycodone. Volunteers are being recruited who have a diagnosis of opioid use disorder but are not being medically treated and are still using opioids. A third of them will receive a placebo vaccine, a third will receive a low-dose injection of vaccine, and the other third will receive a high-dose vaccine.
 

A shot against oxycodone

Researchers are primarily tracking the safety of the shot, but they’re also looking at whether vaccination prevents the euphoria that opioids usually produce. They expect to enroll 24 people initially but expand to 45 if results look promising.

In response to the shot, the body produces antibodies, proteins that tag oxycodone and keep it from reaching the brain. If the drug can’t reach brain cells, it can’t produce euphoria. And more important for lifesaving effects, it can’t block the brain’s signals to the body to breathe. The vaccine has already performed well in animal studies.

Previous trials of vaccines for cocaine and nicotine failed. Those vaccines made it to the last clinical trial stage, but didn’t prove effective overall. So this time, investigators plan to track antibody levels in participants, examining blood samples for signs of a good immune response to the vaccine.

But even though earlier cocaine and nicotine vaccines didn’t work for everybody, there were some people they seemed to help. This is why investigators involved in opioid vaccine trials want to track immune responses, said Marco Pravetoni, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology and medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, whose team will be assessing the blood samples. Ultimately, a doctor might even be able to use this information to tailor vaccine selection to a specific person.

Dr. Pravetoni also said that oxycodone is one of three vaccine targets – the other two are heroin and fentanyl – that researchers hope to combine into a single shot. Recipients might need to have one shot a month for the first 3 to 4 months and then receive annual boosters.
 

Stopping the pain

The vaccines also raise some issues that need attention, said Cody Wenthur, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor of pharmacy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is not involved in the vaccine trials.

“If you’re vaccinated against oxycodone, you might not have access to adequate pain control if you get into a car accident, for example,” he said.

Clinicians could use other opioids for pain management, but limiting the opioids that the vaccine targets is a “double-edged sword,” said Dr. Wenthur, because vaccinated people could just switch their opioid of choice to one that a vaccine does not inhibit.

Although these issues need to be addressed, vaccines, if successful, will have an important role. Dr. Wenthur noted a survey of pharmacists and pharmacy students that he and his group conducted showing that respondents “overwhelmingly” viewed a potential vaccine as helpful.

If the vaccines do become available, their application could extend beyond people who have opioid use disorder, said Dr. Pravetoni. He mentioned the 2002 incident when terrorists took over a theater in Moscow and Russian special forces are thought to have used an aerosolized form of fentanyl to incapacitate everyone in the room. More than 100 of the hostages died, and the episode raised the specter of opioids being used in chemical attacks.

Dr. Pravetoni said vaccination could offer protection for first responders, law enforcement or other people whose professions place them at risk for inhalation, either accidentally or through such attacks.

These or other real-world applications for people at risk for exposure are several years away. Dr. Pravetoni said it took 10 years to get to this phase and estimates that, in about 5 years, a vaccine that targets multiple opioid drugs might enter the first clinical trial.

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