Bipolar Disorder

Mr. B, age 32, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder 10 years ago after experiencing a manic episode that resulted in his first psychiatric hospitalization. He was prescribed quetiapine, 400 mg/d, and remained stable for the next several years. Unfortunately, Mr. B developed significant metabolic adverse effects, including diabetes and a 30-pound weight gain, so he was switched from quetiapine to lithium. Mr. B was unable to tolerate the sedation and cognitive effects of lithium, and the dose could not be titrated to within the therapeutic window. As a result, Mr. B experienced a moderate depressive episode. His current clinician would like to initiate lamotrigine at a starting dose of 25 mg/d. Mr. B has not had a manic episode since the index hospitalization, and this is his first depressive episode.

The term “mood stabilizer” has come to refer to medications that treat a depressive and/or manic episode without inducing the other. In conventional terms, it refers to non-antipsychotic medications such as lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Except for lithium, mood stabilizers are also antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The role of AEDs for treating psychiatric conditions was discovered after they were originally FDA-approved for treating seizures. Following this discovery, the recommended doses and therapeutic ranges for these agents when applied to psychiatric treatment fell into a gray area.

Every patient is different and requires an individualized treatment plan, but this often leaves the clinician wondering, “How high is too high for this mood stabilizer?” or “My patient is responding well, but could a higher dose be even more effective?” In the case of Mr. B, who has trialed 2 medications with poor tolerability, how high can the lamotrigine dose be titrated to achieve a therapeutic response without adverse effects? The literature on this topic does not provide an exact answer, but does shed some light on key considerations for such decisions.

Which mood stabilizers are recommended?

One of the most recently updated guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder was released in 2018 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT).¹ Lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine were each recommended as a first-line option for treating bipolar disorder. For lithium and divalproex, the CANMAT guidelines recommend serum level monitoring for efficacy and tolerability; however, they do not recommend serum level monitoring for lamotrigine. Lithium and divalproex each have safety and tolerability concerns, particularly when selected for maintenance therapy, whereas lamotrigine is typically much better tolerated.¹ Divalproex and lithium can cause weight gain, gastrointestinal adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), and tremor. Additional tolerability concerns with lithium include renal toxicity, electrocardiogram abnormalities, hypothyroidism, cognitive impairment, and dermatologic reactions. Divalproex can produce greater levels of sedation and may impact reproductive function (oligomenorrhea or hyperandrogenism). One of the most common adverse effects of lamotrigine is a non-serious rash; however, slow dose titration is necessary to decrease the risk of a serious, life-threatening rash such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

Lithium

Lithium continues to be regarded as a gold-standard therapy for bipolar disorder. The exact serum levels corresponding to efficacy and tolerability vary. The Lithiumeter: Version 2.0 is a schematic that incorporates the various levels recommended by different clinical guidelines.² The recommended serum levels range from 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L for mania and 0.4 to 0.8 mEq/L for depression.² One of the main issues with lithium dosing is balancing a therapeutic level with tolerability and toxicity. Toxicity may begin when lithium levels exceed 1.2 mEq/L, and levels >2.0 mEq/L can be lethal. Signs of acute toxicity include tremor, headache, arrhythmia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, polyuria, and polydipsia. Conversely, chronic lithium use may lead to chronic toxicity as patients age and their physical health changes. Signs of chronic toxicity include ataxia, confusion, renal dysfunction, and tremor. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to lithium dosing. Individualized dosing is necessary to balance efficacy and tolerability.

Divalproex

Divalproex was initially studied for use as an AED, and its therapeutic levels as an AED are not the same as those indicated for bipolar disorder. Generally, patients with bipolar disorder require a divalproex serum level >50 µg/mL. Ranges closer to 100 µg/mL have been found to be most effective for treating acute mania.³ A loading dose of 20 to 30 mg/kg/d can be administered to help achieve mood stabilization. Again, efficacy must be balanced against toxicity. The maximum dose of divalproex is 60 mg/kg/d, which is rarely seen in psychiatric practice. Early studies of divalproex found adverse effects greatest in individuals with plasma levels >100 µg/mL. Reported adverse effects included alopecia, weight gain, tremor, and mental status changes.⁴

Lamotrigine

Unlike lithium and divalproex, lamotrigine therapeutic drug monitoring is not common. The accepted therapeutic reference range (TRR) for lamotrigine as an AED is 3,000 to 14,000 ng/mL. Unholzer et al⁵ evaluated the dose and TRR for individuals with bipolar disorder treated with lamotrigine. No statistically significant difference in lamotrigine serum levels was found in responders vs nonresponders.⁵ Most patients were prescribed ≤200 mg/d; however, some were prescribed higher doses. The maximum dose recommended when lamotrigine is used as an AED is 400 mg/d; however, this study furthered the evidence that lower doses tend to be effective in bipolar disorder.

Continue to: CASE

It has been 3 months since Mr. B was initiated on lamotrigine, and he has since been titrated to his current, stable dose of 100 mg/d. Mr. B is no longer experiencing the sedation he had with lithium and has the energy to commit to an exercise routine. This has allowed him to lose 15 pounds so far and greatly improve control of his diabetes.

Dosage summary

Most available evidence supports dosing lithium and divalproex to effect, typically seen between 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L and 50 to 125 µg/mL, respectively. Higher plasma levels tend to correspond to more adverse effects and toxicity. Lamotrigine does not have such a narrow therapeutic window. Lamotrigine for psychiatric treatment yields greatest efficacy at approximately 200 mg/d, but doses can be increased if warranted, which could be the case in Mr. B.

Table 1^1-5 outlines dosing strategies and therapeutic serum levels for lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Table 2² lists signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity, and Table 3^1,2 describes strategies for managing adverse effects of lithium and divalproex.

Mr. B, age 32, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder 10 years ago after experiencing a manic episode that resulted in his first psychiatric hospitalization. He was prescribed quetiapine, 400 mg/d, and remained stable for the next several years. Unfortunately, Mr. B developed significant metabolic adverse effects, including diabetes and a 30-pound weight gain, so he was switched from quetiapine to lithium. Mr. B was unable to tolerate the sedation and cognitive effects of lithium, and the dose could not be titrated to within the therapeutic window. As a result, Mr. B experienced a moderate depressive episode. His current clinician would like to initiate lamotrigine at a starting dose of 25 mg/d. Mr. B has not had a manic episode since the index hospitalization, and this is his first depressive episode.

The term “mood stabilizer” has come to refer to medications that treat a depressive and/or manic episode without inducing the other. In conventional terms, it refers to non-antipsychotic medications such as lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Except for lithium, mood stabilizers are also antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The role of AEDs for treating psychiatric conditions was discovered after they were originally FDA-approved for treating seizures. Following this discovery, the recommended doses and therapeutic ranges for these agents when applied to psychiatric treatment fell into a gray area.

Every patient is different and requires an individualized treatment plan, but this often leaves the clinician wondering, “How high is too high for this mood stabilizer?” or “My patient is responding well, but could a higher dose be even more effective?” In the case of Mr. B, who has trialed 2 medications with poor tolerability, how high can the lamotrigine dose be titrated to achieve a therapeutic response without adverse effects? The literature on this topic does not provide an exact answer, but does shed some light on key considerations for such decisions.

Which mood stabilizers are recommended?

One of the most recently updated guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder was released in 2018 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT).¹ Lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine were each recommended as a first-line option for treating bipolar disorder. For lithium and divalproex, the CANMAT guidelines recommend serum level monitoring for efficacy and tolerability; however, they do not recommend serum level monitoring for lamotrigine. Lithium and divalproex each have safety and tolerability concerns, particularly when selected for maintenance therapy, whereas lamotrigine is typically much better tolerated.¹ Divalproex and lithium can cause weight gain, gastrointestinal adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), and tremor. Additional tolerability concerns with lithium include renal toxicity, electrocardiogram abnormalities, hypothyroidism, cognitive impairment, and dermatologic reactions. Divalproex can produce greater levels of sedation and may impact reproductive function (oligomenorrhea or hyperandrogenism). One of the most common adverse effects of lamotrigine is a non-serious rash; however, slow dose titration is necessary to decrease the risk of a serious, life-threatening rash such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

Lithium

Lithium continues to be regarded as a gold-standard therapy for bipolar disorder. The exact serum levels corresponding to efficacy and tolerability vary. The Lithiumeter: Version 2.0 is a schematic that incorporates the various levels recommended by different clinical guidelines.² The recommended serum levels range from 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L for mania and 0.4 to 0.8 mEq/L for depression.² One of the main issues with lithium dosing is balancing a therapeutic level with tolerability and toxicity. Toxicity may begin when lithium levels exceed 1.2 mEq/L, and levels >2.0 mEq/L can be lethal. Signs of acute toxicity include tremor, headache, arrhythmia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, polyuria, and polydipsia. Conversely, chronic lithium use may lead to chronic toxicity as patients age and their physical health changes. Signs of chronic toxicity include ataxia, confusion, renal dysfunction, and tremor. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to lithium dosing. Individualized dosing is necessary to balance efficacy and tolerability.

Divalproex

Divalproex was initially studied for use as an AED, and its therapeutic levels as an AED are not the same as those indicated for bipolar disorder. Generally, patients with bipolar disorder require a divalproex serum level >50 µg/mL. Ranges closer to 100 µg/mL have been found to be most effective for treating acute mania.³ A loading dose of 20 to 30 mg/kg/d can be administered to help achieve mood stabilization. Again, efficacy must be balanced against toxicity. The maximum dose of divalproex is 60 mg/kg/d, which is rarely seen in psychiatric practice. Early studies of divalproex found adverse effects greatest in individuals with plasma levels >100 µg/mL. Reported adverse effects included alopecia, weight gain, tremor, and mental status changes.⁴

Lamotrigine

Unlike lithium and divalproex, lamotrigine therapeutic drug monitoring is not common. The accepted therapeutic reference range (TRR) for lamotrigine as an AED is 3,000 to 14,000 ng/mL. Unholzer et al⁵ evaluated the dose and TRR for individuals with bipolar disorder treated with lamotrigine. No statistically significant difference in lamotrigine serum levels was found in responders vs nonresponders.⁵ Most patients were prescribed ≤200 mg/d; however, some were prescribed higher doses. The maximum dose recommended when lamotrigine is used as an AED is 400 mg/d; however, this study furthered the evidence that lower doses tend to be effective in bipolar disorder.

Continue to: CASE

It has been 3 months since Mr. B was initiated on lamotrigine, and he has since been titrated to his current, stable dose of 100 mg/d. Mr. B is no longer experiencing the sedation he had with lithium and has the energy to commit to an exercise routine. This has allowed him to lose 15 pounds so far and greatly improve control of his diabetes.

Dosage summary

Most available evidence supports dosing lithium and divalproex to effect, typically seen between 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L and 50 to 125 µg/mL, respectively. Higher plasma levels tend to correspond to more adverse effects and toxicity. Lamotrigine does not have such a narrow therapeutic window. Lamotrigine for psychiatric treatment yields greatest efficacy at approximately 200 mg/d, but doses can be increased if warranted, which could be the case in Mr. B.

Table 1^1-5 outlines dosing strategies and therapeutic serum levels for lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Table 2² lists signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity, and Table 3^1,2 describes strategies for managing adverse effects of lithium and divalproex.

Mr. B, age 32, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder 10 years ago after experiencing a manic episode that resulted in his first psychiatric hospitalization. He was prescribed quetiapine, 400 mg/d, and remained stable for the next several years. Unfortunately, Mr. B developed significant metabolic adverse effects, including diabetes and a 30-pound weight gain, so he was switched from quetiapine to lithium. Mr. B was unable to tolerate the sedation and cognitive effects of lithium, and the dose could not be titrated to within the therapeutic window. As a result, Mr. B experienced a moderate depressive episode. His current clinician would like to initiate lamotrigine at a starting dose of 25 mg/d. Mr. B has not had a manic episode since the index hospitalization, and this is his first depressive episode.

The term “mood stabilizer” has come to refer to medications that treat a depressive and/or manic episode without inducing the other. In conventional terms, it refers to non-antipsychotic medications such as lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Except for lithium, mood stabilizers are also antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The role of AEDs for treating psychiatric conditions was discovered after they were originally FDA-approved for treating seizures. Following this discovery, the recommended doses and therapeutic ranges for these agents when applied to psychiatric treatment fell into a gray area.

Every patient is different and requires an individualized treatment plan, but this often leaves the clinician wondering, “How high is too high for this mood stabilizer?” or “My patient is responding well, but could a higher dose be even more effective?” In the case of Mr. B, who has trialed 2 medications with poor tolerability, how high can the lamotrigine dose be titrated to achieve a therapeutic response without adverse effects? The literature on this topic does not provide an exact answer, but does shed some light on key considerations for such decisions.

Which mood stabilizers are recommended?

One of the most recently updated guidelines for the treatment of bipolar disorder was released in 2018 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT).¹ Lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine were each recommended as a first-line option for treating bipolar disorder. For lithium and divalproex, the CANMAT guidelines recommend serum level monitoring for efficacy and tolerability; however, they do not recommend serum level monitoring for lamotrigine. Lithium and divalproex each have safety and tolerability concerns, particularly when selected for maintenance therapy, whereas lamotrigine is typically much better tolerated.¹ Divalproex and lithium can cause weight gain, gastrointestinal adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), and tremor. Additional tolerability concerns with lithium include renal toxicity, electrocardiogram abnormalities, hypothyroidism, cognitive impairment, and dermatologic reactions. Divalproex can produce greater levels of sedation and may impact reproductive function (oligomenorrhea or hyperandrogenism). One of the most common adverse effects of lamotrigine is a non-serious rash; however, slow dose titration is necessary to decrease the risk of a serious, life-threatening rash such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

Lithium

Lithium continues to be regarded as a gold-standard therapy for bipolar disorder. The exact serum levels corresponding to efficacy and tolerability vary. The Lithiumeter: Version 2.0 is a schematic that incorporates the various levels recommended by different clinical guidelines.² The recommended serum levels range from 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L for mania and 0.4 to 0.8 mEq/L for depression.² One of the main issues with lithium dosing is balancing a therapeutic level with tolerability and toxicity. Toxicity may begin when lithium levels exceed 1.2 mEq/L, and levels >2.0 mEq/L can be lethal. Signs of acute toxicity include tremor, headache, arrhythmia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, polyuria, and polydipsia. Conversely, chronic lithium use may lead to chronic toxicity as patients age and their physical health changes. Signs of chronic toxicity include ataxia, confusion, renal dysfunction, and tremor. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to lithium dosing. Individualized dosing is necessary to balance efficacy and tolerability.

Divalproex

Divalproex was initially studied for use as an AED, and its therapeutic levels as an AED are not the same as those indicated for bipolar disorder. Generally, patients with bipolar disorder require a divalproex serum level >50 µg/mL. Ranges closer to 100 µg/mL have been found to be most effective for treating acute mania.³ A loading dose of 20 to 30 mg/kg/d can be administered to help achieve mood stabilization. Again, efficacy must be balanced against toxicity. The maximum dose of divalproex is 60 mg/kg/d, which is rarely seen in psychiatric practice. Early studies of divalproex found adverse effects greatest in individuals with plasma levels >100 µg/mL. Reported adverse effects included alopecia, weight gain, tremor, and mental status changes.⁴

Lamotrigine

Unlike lithium and divalproex, lamotrigine therapeutic drug monitoring is not common. The accepted therapeutic reference range (TRR) for lamotrigine as an AED is 3,000 to 14,000 ng/mL. Unholzer et al⁵ evaluated the dose and TRR for individuals with bipolar disorder treated with lamotrigine. No statistically significant difference in lamotrigine serum levels was found in responders vs nonresponders.⁵ Most patients were prescribed ≤200 mg/d; however, some were prescribed higher doses. The maximum dose recommended when lamotrigine is used as an AED is 400 mg/d; however, this study furthered the evidence that lower doses tend to be effective in bipolar disorder.

Continue to: CASE

It has been 3 months since Mr. B was initiated on lamotrigine, and he has since been titrated to his current, stable dose of 100 mg/d. Mr. B is no longer experiencing the sedation he had with lithium and has the energy to commit to an exercise routine. This has allowed him to lose 15 pounds so far and greatly improve control of his diabetes.

Dosage summary

Most available evidence supports dosing lithium and divalproex to effect, typically seen between 0.6 to 1.0 mEq/L and 50 to 125 µg/mL, respectively. Higher plasma levels tend to correspond to more adverse effects and toxicity. Lamotrigine does not have such a narrow therapeutic window. Lamotrigine for psychiatric treatment yields greatest efficacy at approximately 200 mg/d, but doses can be increased if warranted, which could be the case in Mr. B.

Table 1^1-5 outlines dosing strategies and therapeutic serum levels for lithium, divalproex, and lamotrigine. Table 2² lists signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity, and Table 3^1,2 describes strategies for managing adverse effects of lithium and divalproex.

CASE Aggressive behaviors, psychosis

Ms. N, age 58, has a long history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features. She presents to our emergency department (ED) after an acute fall and frequent violent behaviors at her nursing home, where she had resided since being diagnosed with an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. For several weeks before her fall, she was physically aggressive, throwing objects at nursing home staff, and was unable to have her behavior redirected.

While in the ED, Ms. N rambles and appears to be responding to internal stimuli. Suddenly, she stops responding and begins to stare.

HISTORY Severe, chronic psychosis and hospitalization

Ms. N is well-known at our inpatient psychiatry and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) services. During the last 10 years, she has had worsening manic, psychotic, and catatonic (both excited and stuporous subtype) episodes. Three years ago, she had experienced a period of severe, chronic psychosis and excited catatonia that required extended inpatient treatment. While hospitalized, Ms. N had marginal responses to clozapine and benzodiazepines, but improved dramatically with ECT. After Ms. N left the hospital, she went to live with her boyfriend. She remained stable on monthly maintenance ECT treatments (bifrontal) before she was lost to follow-up 14 months prior to the current presentation. Ms. N’s family reports that she needed a cardiac clearance before continuing ECT treatment; however, she was hospitalized at another hospital with pneumonia and subsequent complications that interrupted the maintenance ECT treatments.

Approximately 3 months after medical issues requiring hospitalization began, Ms. N received a diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder due to difficulty with activities of daily living and cognitive decline. She was transferred to a nursing home by the outside hospital. When Ms. N’s symptoms of psychosis returned and she required inpatient psychiatric care, she was transferred to a nearby facility that did not have ECT available or knowledge of her history of catatonia resistant to pharmacologic management. Ms. N had a documented history of catatonia that spanned 10 years. During the last 4 years, Ms. N often required ECT treatment. Her current medication regimen prescribed by an outpatient psychiatrist includes clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily, both for bipolar disorder.

EVALUATION An unusual mix of symptoms

In the ED, Ms. N undergoes a CT of the head, which is found to be nonacute. Laboratory results show that her white blood cell count is 14.3 K/µL, which is mildly elevated. Results from a urinalysis and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable.

After Ms. N punches a radiology technician, she is administered IV lorazepam, 2 mg once, for her agitation. Twenty minutes after receiving IV lorazepam, she is calm and cooperative. However, approximately 4 hours later, Ms. N is yelling, tearful, and expressing delusions of grandeur—she believes she is God.

After she is admitted to the medical floor, Ms. N is seen by our consultation and liaison psychiatry service. She exhibits several signs of catatonia, including grasp reflex, gegenhalten (oppositional paratonia), waxy flexibility, and echolalia. Ms. N also has an episode of urinary incontinence. At some parts of the day, she is alert and oriented to self and location; at other times, she is somnolent and disoriented. The treatment team continues Ms. N’s previous medication regimen of clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily. Unfortunately, at times Ms. N spits out and hides her administered oral medications, which leads to the decision to discontinue clozapine. Once medically cleared, Ms. N is transferred to the psychiatric floor.

[polldaddy:10869949]

Continue to: TREATMENT

TREATMENT Bifrontal ECT initiated

On hospital Day 3 Ms. N is administered a trial of IM lorazepam, titrated up to 6 mg/d (maximum tolerated dose) while the treatment team initiates the legal process to conduct ECT because she is unable to give consent. Once Ms. N begins tolerating oral medications, amantadine, 100 mg twice daily, is added to treat her catatonia. As in prior hospitalizations, Ms. N is unresponsive to pharmacotherapy alone for her catatonic symptoms. On hospital Day 8, forced ECT is granted, which is 5 days after the process of filing paperwork was started. Bifrontal ECT is utilized with the following settings: frequency 70 Hz, pulse width 1.5 ms, 100% energy dose, 504 mC. Ms. N does not experience a significant improvement until she receives 10 ECT treatments as part of a 3-times-per-week acute series protocol. The Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and the KANNER scale are used to monitor her progress. Her initial BFCRS score is 17 and initial KANNER scale, part 2 score is 26.

Ms. N spends a total of 61 days in the hospital, which is significantly longer than her previous hospital admissions on our psychiatric unit; these previous admissions were for treatment of both stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia. This increased length of stay coincides with a significantly longer duration of untreated catatonia. Knowledge of her history of both the stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia would have allowed for faster diagnosis and treatment.¹

The authors’ observations

Originally conceptualized as a separate syndrome by Karl Kahlbaum, catatonia was considered only as a specifier for neuropsychiatric conditions (primarily schizophrenia) as recently as DSM-IV-TR.² DSM-5 describes catatonia as a marked psychomotor disturbance and acknowledges its connection to schizophrenia by keeping it in the same chapter.³ DSM-5 includes separate diagnoses for catatonia, catatonia due to a general medical condition, and unspecified catatonia (for catatonia without a known underlying disorder).³ A recent meta-analysis found the prevalence of catatonia is higher in patients with medical/neurologic illness, bipolar disorder, and autism than in those with schizophrenia.⁴

Table 1³ highlights the DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 symptoms to be present, although symptoms may fluctuate with time.³ If a clinician is not specifically looking for catatonia, it can be a difficult syndrome to diagnose. Does rigidity indicate catatonia, or excessive dopamine blockade from an antipsychotic? How can seemingly contradictory symptoms be part of the same syndrome? Many clinicians associate catatonia with the stuporous subtype (immobility, posturing, catalepsy), which is more prevalent, but the excited subtype, which may involve severe agitation, autonomic dysfunction, and impaired consciousness, can be lethal.² The diversity in presentation of catatonia is not unlike the challenging variety of symptoms of heart attacks.

A retrospective study of all adults admitted to a hospital found that only 41% of patients who met criteria for catatonia received this diagnosis.⁵ Further complicating the diagnosis, delirium and catatonia can co-exist; one study found this was the case in 1 of 3 critically ill patients.⁶ DSM-5 criteria for catatonia due to another medical condition exclude the diagnosis if delirium is present, but this study and others suggest this needs to be reconsidered.³   

Continue to: A standardized evaluation is key

A standardized evaluation is key

Just as a patient who presents with chest pain requires a standardized evaluation, including a pertinent history, laboratory workup, and ECG, psychiatrists may also use standardized diagnostic instruments to aid in the diagnosis of catatonia. One study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia found that using a standardized diagnostic procedure for catatonia resulted in a 7-fold increase in the diagnosis.⁷ The BFCRS is the most common standardized instrument for catatonia, likely due to its high inter-rater reliability.⁸ Other scales include the KANNER scale and Northoff Catatonia Scale, which emphasize different aspects of the disease or for certain clinical populations (eg, the KANNER scale adjusts for patients who are nonverbal at baseline). One study suggested that BFCRS has lower reliability for less-severe illness.⁹ These differences emphasize that psychiatry does not have a thorough understanding of the intricacies of catatonia. However, using validated screening tools can lead to more consistent diagnoses and continue important research on this often-misunderstood illness.

Dangers of untreated catatonia

Rapid treatment of catatonia is necessary to prevent mortality. A study of patients in Kentucky’s state psychiatric hospitals found that untreated catatonia with resultant death from pulmonary embolism was the leading cause of preventable death.¹⁰ A 17-year retrospective study of patients with schizophrenia admitted to 1 hospital found that those with catatonia were >4 times as likely to die during hospitalization than those without catatonia.¹¹ The significant morbidity and mortality from untreated catatonia are typically attributed to the consequences of poorly controlled movements, immobility, autonomic instability, and poor/no oral intake. Reduced oral intake can result in malnutrition, dehydration, arrhythmias, and increased risk of infections. Furthermore, chronic catatonic episodes are more difficult to treat.¹² In addition to the aggressive management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, it is vital to evaluate relevant medical etiologies that may be contributing to the syndrome (Table 2¹³). Tracking vital signs and laboratory values, such as creatine kinase, electrolytes, and complete blood count, is required to ensure the medical condition does not become life-threatening.

Treatment options

Studies and expert opinion suggest that benzodiazepines (specifically lorazepam, because it is the most studied agent) are the first-line treatment for catatonia. A lorazepam challenge test—providing 1 or 2 mg of IV lorazepam—is considered diagnostic and therapeutic given the high rate of response within 10 minutes.¹⁴ Patients with limited response to lorazepam or who are medically compromised should undergo ECT. Electroconvulsive therapy is considered the gold-standard treatment for catatonia; estimated response rates range from 59% to 100%, even in patients who fail to respond to pharmacotherapy.¹⁵ Although highly effective, ECT is often hindered by the time required to initiate treatment, stigma, lack of access, and other logistical challenges. 

Table 3^14-18 highlights the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options for catatonia. Some researchers have suggested a zolpidem challenge test could augment lorazepam because some patients respond only to zolpidem.¹⁴ The efficacy of these medications along with some evidence of anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate medications, such as amantadine and memantine, suggest that there is an underactivation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and overactivation of glutamate in the brain,¹⁶ with some researchers noting the similarity between catatonia and the fear response.¹⁷ Consequently, excessive dopamine D2 antagonism or withdrawal of dopamine agonists can either bring on or worsen the symptoms of catatonia, with researchers identifying an overlap between neuroleptic malignant syndrome and catatonia.¹⁸ Although some studies suggest that second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), particularly lower-potency agents such as olanzapine, may help treat catatonia, other studies suggest using caution when initiating in patients without an underlying psychotic illness. The treating clinician may want to consider switching a patient receiving a high-potency antipsychotic to one with a lower potency, lowering the dose of high-potency agent, or discontinuing the medication altogether.

Ms. N was ultimately diagnosed with bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, with psychotic and catatonic features. Ms. N had symptoms of mania including grandiosity, periods of lack of sleep, delusions as well as depressive symptoms of tearfulness and low mood. The treatment team had considered that Ms. N had delirious mania because she had fluctuating sensorium, which included varying degrees of orientation and ability to answer questioning. However, the literature supporting the differentiation between delirious mania and excited catatonia is unclear, and both conditions may respond to ECT.¹⁸ A diagnosis of catatonia allowed the team to use rating scales to track Ms. N’s progress by monitoring for specific signs, such as grasp reflex and waxy flexibility.

Continue to: OUTCOME

OUTCOME Return to baseline

Before discharge, Ms. N’s BFCRS score decreases from the initial score of 17 to 0, and her KANNER scale score decreases from the initial score of 26 to 4, which correlates with vast improvement in clinical presentation. Once Ms. N completes the acute ECT treatment, she returns to her baseline level of functioning, and is discharged to live with her boyfriend. She is advised to continue weekly ECT for the first several months to ensure clinical stability. This regimen is later transitioned to biweekly and then monthly. Electroconvulsive therapy protocols from previous research were utilized in Ms. N’s case, but ultimately the lowest number of ECT treatments needed to maintain stability is determined clinically over many years.¹⁹ Ms. N is discharged on aripiprazole, 15 mg/d; bupropion ER, 300 mg/d (added after depressive symptoms emerge while catatonia symptoms improve midway through her lengthy hospitalization); and memantine, 10 mg/d. Ideally, clozapine would have been continued; however, due to her history of nonadherence and frequent restarting of the medication at a low dose, clozapine was discontinued and aripiprazole initiated.

More than 1 year later, Ms. N remains stable and continues to receive monthly ECT maintenance treatments.

Bottom Line

Catatonia should always be considered in a patient who presents with acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rapid diagnosis with standardized screening instruments and aggressive treatment are vital to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Related Resource

• Freudenreich O, Francis A, Fricchione GL. Chapter 9. Psychosis, mania, and catatonia. In: Levenson, James L, ed. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing textbook of psychosomatic medicine and consultation-liaison psychiatry. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion ER • Wellbutrin XL
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Metoclopramide • Reglan
Memantine • Namenda
Topiramate • Topamax
Zolpidem • Ambien

CASE Aggressive behaviors, psychosis

Ms. N, age 58, has a long history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features. She presents to our emergency department (ED) after an acute fall and frequent violent behaviors at her nursing home, where she had resided since being diagnosed with an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. For several weeks before her fall, she was physically aggressive, throwing objects at nursing home staff, and was unable to have her behavior redirected.

While in the ED, Ms. N rambles and appears to be responding to internal stimuli. Suddenly, she stops responding and begins to stare.

HISTORY Severe, chronic psychosis and hospitalization

Ms. N is well-known at our inpatient psychiatry and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) services. During the last 10 years, she has had worsening manic, psychotic, and catatonic (both excited and stuporous subtype) episodes. Three years ago, she had experienced a period of severe, chronic psychosis and excited catatonia that required extended inpatient treatment. While hospitalized, Ms. N had marginal responses to clozapine and benzodiazepines, but improved dramatically with ECT. After Ms. N left the hospital, she went to live with her boyfriend. She remained stable on monthly maintenance ECT treatments (bifrontal) before she was lost to follow-up 14 months prior to the current presentation. Ms. N’s family reports that she needed a cardiac clearance before continuing ECT treatment; however, she was hospitalized at another hospital with pneumonia and subsequent complications that interrupted the maintenance ECT treatments.

Approximately 3 months after medical issues requiring hospitalization began, Ms. N received a diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder due to difficulty with activities of daily living and cognitive decline. She was transferred to a nursing home by the outside hospital. When Ms. N’s symptoms of psychosis returned and she required inpatient psychiatric care, she was transferred to a nearby facility that did not have ECT available or knowledge of her history of catatonia resistant to pharmacologic management. Ms. N had a documented history of catatonia that spanned 10 years. During the last 4 years, Ms. N often required ECT treatment. Her current medication regimen prescribed by an outpatient psychiatrist includes clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily, both for bipolar disorder.

EVALUATION An unusual mix of symptoms

In the ED, Ms. N undergoes a CT of the head, which is found to be nonacute. Laboratory results show that her white blood cell count is 14.3 K/µL, which is mildly elevated. Results from a urinalysis and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable.

After Ms. N punches a radiology technician, she is administered IV lorazepam, 2 mg once, for her agitation. Twenty minutes after receiving IV lorazepam, she is calm and cooperative. However, approximately 4 hours later, Ms. N is yelling, tearful, and expressing delusions of grandeur—she believes she is God.

After she is admitted to the medical floor, Ms. N is seen by our consultation and liaison psychiatry service. She exhibits several signs of catatonia, including grasp reflex, gegenhalten (oppositional paratonia), waxy flexibility, and echolalia. Ms. N also has an episode of urinary incontinence. At some parts of the day, she is alert and oriented to self and location; at other times, she is somnolent and disoriented. The treatment team continues Ms. N’s previous medication regimen of clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily. Unfortunately, at times Ms. N spits out and hides her administered oral medications, which leads to the decision to discontinue clozapine. Once medically cleared, Ms. N is transferred to the psychiatric floor.

[polldaddy:10869949]

Continue to: TREATMENT

TREATMENT Bifrontal ECT initiated

On hospital Day 3 Ms. N is administered a trial of IM lorazepam, titrated up to 6 mg/d (maximum tolerated dose) while the treatment team initiates the legal process to conduct ECT because she is unable to give consent. Once Ms. N begins tolerating oral medications, amantadine, 100 mg twice daily, is added to treat her catatonia. As in prior hospitalizations, Ms. N is unresponsive to pharmacotherapy alone for her catatonic symptoms. On hospital Day 8, forced ECT is granted, which is 5 days after the process of filing paperwork was started. Bifrontal ECT is utilized with the following settings: frequency 70 Hz, pulse width 1.5 ms, 100% energy dose, 504 mC. Ms. N does not experience a significant improvement until she receives 10 ECT treatments as part of a 3-times-per-week acute series protocol. The Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and the KANNER scale are used to monitor her progress. Her initial BFCRS score is 17 and initial KANNER scale, part 2 score is 26.

Ms. N spends a total of 61 days in the hospital, which is significantly longer than her previous hospital admissions on our psychiatric unit; these previous admissions were for treatment of both stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia. This increased length of stay coincides with a significantly longer duration of untreated catatonia. Knowledge of her history of both the stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia would have allowed for faster diagnosis and treatment.¹

The authors’ observations

Originally conceptualized as a separate syndrome by Karl Kahlbaum, catatonia was considered only as a specifier for neuropsychiatric conditions (primarily schizophrenia) as recently as DSM-IV-TR.² DSM-5 describes catatonia as a marked psychomotor disturbance and acknowledges its connection to schizophrenia by keeping it in the same chapter.³ DSM-5 includes separate diagnoses for catatonia, catatonia due to a general medical condition, and unspecified catatonia (for catatonia without a known underlying disorder).³ A recent meta-analysis found the prevalence of catatonia is higher in patients with medical/neurologic illness, bipolar disorder, and autism than in those with schizophrenia.⁴

Table 1³ highlights the DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 symptoms to be present, although symptoms may fluctuate with time.³ If a clinician is not specifically looking for catatonia, it can be a difficult syndrome to diagnose. Does rigidity indicate catatonia, or excessive dopamine blockade from an antipsychotic? How can seemingly contradictory symptoms be part of the same syndrome? Many clinicians associate catatonia with the stuporous subtype (immobility, posturing, catalepsy), which is more prevalent, but the excited subtype, which may involve severe agitation, autonomic dysfunction, and impaired consciousness, can be lethal.² The diversity in presentation of catatonia is not unlike the challenging variety of symptoms of heart attacks.

A retrospective study of all adults admitted to a hospital found that only 41% of patients who met criteria for catatonia received this diagnosis.⁵ Further complicating the diagnosis, delirium and catatonia can co-exist; one study found this was the case in 1 of 3 critically ill patients.⁶ DSM-5 criteria for catatonia due to another medical condition exclude the diagnosis if delirium is present, but this study and others suggest this needs to be reconsidered.³   

Continue to: A standardized evaluation is key

A standardized evaluation is key

Just as a patient who presents with chest pain requires a standardized evaluation, including a pertinent history, laboratory workup, and ECG, psychiatrists may also use standardized diagnostic instruments to aid in the diagnosis of catatonia. One study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia found that using a standardized diagnostic procedure for catatonia resulted in a 7-fold increase in the diagnosis.⁷ The BFCRS is the most common standardized instrument for catatonia, likely due to its high inter-rater reliability.⁸ Other scales include the KANNER scale and Northoff Catatonia Scale, which emphasize different aspects of the disease or for certain clinical populations (eg, the KANNER scale adjusts for patients who are nonverbal at baseline). One study suggested that BFCRS has lower reliability for less-severe illness.⁹ These differences emphasize that psychiatry does not have a thorough understanding of the intricacies of catatonia. However, using validated screening tools can lead to more consistent diagnoses and continue important research on this often-misunderstood illness.

Dangers of untreated catatonia

Rapid treatment of catatonia is necessary to prevent mortality. A study of patients in Kentucky’s state psychiatric hospitals found that untreated catatonia with resultant death from pulmonary embolism was the leading cause of preventable death.¹⁰ A 17-year retrospective study of patients with schizophrenia admitted to 1 hospital found that those with catatonia were >4 times as likely to die during hospitalization than those without catatonia.¹¹ The significant morbidity and mortality from untreated catatonia are typically attributed to the consequences of poorly controlled movements, immobility, autonomic instability, and poor/no oral intake. Reduced oral intake can result in malnutrition, dehydration, arrhythmias, and increased risk of infections. Furthermore, chronic catatonic episodes are more difficult to treat.¹² In addition to the aggressive management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, it is vital to evaluate relevant medical etiologies that may be contributing to the syndrome (Table 2¹³). Tracking vital signs and laboratory values, such as creatine kinase, electrolytes, and complete blood count, is required to ensure the medical condition does not become life-threatening.

Treatment options

Studies and expert opinion suggest that benzodiazepines (specifically lorazepam, because it is the most studied agent) are the first-line treatment for catatonia. A lorazepam challenge test—providing 1 or 2 mg of IV lorazepam—is considered diagnostic and therapeutic given the high rate of response within 10 minutes.¹⁴ Patients with limited response to lorazepam or who are medically compromised should undergo ECT. Electroconvulsive therapy is considered the gold-standard treatment for catatonia; estimated response rates range from 59% to 100%, even in patients who fail to respond to pharmacotherapy.¹⁵ Although highly effective, ECT is often hindered by the time required to initiate treatment, stigma, lack of access, and other logistical challenges. 

Table 3^14-18 highlights the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options for catatonia. Some researchers have suggested a zolpidem challenge test could augment lorazepam because some patients respond only to zolpidem.¹⁴ The efficacy of these medications along with some evidence of anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate medications, such as amantadine and memantine, suggest that there is an underactivation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and overactivation of glutamate in the brain,¹⁶ with some researchers noting the similarity between catatonia and the fear response.¹⁷ Consequently, excessive dopamine D2 antagonism or withdrawal of dopamine agonists can either bring on or worsen the symptoms of catatonia, with researchers identifying an overlap between neuroleptic malignant syndrome and catatonia.¹⁸ Although some studies suggest that second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), particularly lower-potency agents such as olanzapine, may help treat catatonia, other studies suggest using caution when initiating in patients without an underlying psychotic illness. The treating clinician may want to consider switching a patient receiving a high-potency antipsychotic to one with a lower potency, lowering the dose of high-potency agent, or discontinuing the medication altogether.

Ms. N was ultimately diagnosed with bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, with psychotic and catatonic features. Ms. N had symptoms of mania including grandiosity, periods of lack of sleep, delusions as well as depressive symptoms of tearfulness and low mood. The treatment team had considered that Ms. N had delirious mania because she had fluctuating sensorium, which included varying degrees of orientation and ability to answer questioning. However, the literature supporting the differentiation between delirious mania and excited catatonia is unclear, and both conditions may respond to ECT.¹⁸ A diagnosis of catatonia allowed the team to use rating scales to track Ms. N’s progress by monitoring for specific signs, such as grasp reflex and waxy flexibility.

Continue to: OUTCOME

OUTCOME Return to baseline

Before discharge, Ms. N’s BFCRS score decreases from the initial score of 17 to 0, and her KANNER scale score decreases from the initial score of 26 to 4, which correlates with vast improvement in clinical presentation. Once Ms. N completes the acute ECT treatment, she returns to her baseline level of functioning, and is discharged to live with her boyfriend. She is advised to continue weekly ECT for the first several months to ensure clinical stability. This regimen is later transitioned to biweekly and then monthly. Electroconvulsive therapy protocols from previous research were utilized in Ms. N’s case, but ultimately the lowest number of ECT treatments needed to maintain stability is determined clinically over many years.¹⁹ Ms. N is discharged on aripiprazole, 15 mg/d; bupropion ER, 300 mg/d (added after depressive symptoms emerge while catatonia symptoms improve midway through her lengthy hospitalization); and memantine, 10 mg/d. Ideally, clozapine would have been continued; however, due to her history of nonadherence and frequent restarting of the medication at a low dose, clozapine was discontinued and aripiprazole initiated.

More than 1 year later, Ms. N remains stable and continues to receive monthly ECT maintenance treatments.

Bottom Line

Catatonia should always be considered in a patient who presents with acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rapid diagnosis with standardized screening instruments and aggressive treatment are vital to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Related Resource

• Freudenreich O, Francis A, Fricchione GL. Chapter 9. Psychosis, mania, and catatonia. In: Levenson, James L, ed. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing textbook of psychosomatic medicine and consultation-liaison psychiatry. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion ER • Wellbutrin XL
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Metoclopramide • Reglan
Memantine • Namenda
Topiramate • Topamax
Zolpidem • Ambien

CASE Aggressive behaviors, psychosis

Ms. N, age 58, has a long history of bipolar disorder with psychotic features. She presents to our emergency department (ED) after an acute fall and frequent violent behaviors at her nursing home, where she had resided since being diagnosed with an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. For several weeks before her fall, she was physically aggressive, throwing objects at nursing home staff, and was unable to have her behavior redirected.

While in the ED, Ms. N rambles and appears to be responding to internal stimuli. Suddenly, she stops responding and begins to stare.

HISTORY Severe, chronic psychosis and hospitalization

Ms. N is well-known at our inpatient psychiatry and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) services. During the last 10 years, she has had worsening manic, psychotic, and catatonic (both excited and stuporous subtype) episodes. Three years ago, she had experienced a period of severe, chronic psychosis and excited catatonia that required extended inpatient treatment. While hospitalized, Ms. N had marginal responses to clozapine and benzodiazepines, but improved dramatically with ECT. After Ms. N left the hospital, she went to live with her boyfriend. She remained stable on monthly maintenance ECT treatments (bifrontal) before she was lost to follow-up 14 months prior to the current presentation. Ms. N’s family reports that she needed a cardiac clearance before continuing ECT treatment; however, she was hospitalized at another hospital with pneumonia and subsequent complications that interrupted the maintenance ECT treatments.

Approximately 3 months after medical issues requiring hospitalization began, Ms. N received a diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder due to difficulty with activities of daily living and cognitive decline. She was transferred to a nursing home by the outside hospital. When Ms. N’s symptoms of psychosis returned and she required inpatient psychiatric care, she was transferred to a nearby facility that did not have ECT available or knowledge of her history of catatonia resistant to pharmacologic management. Ms. N had a documented history of catatonia that spanned 10 years. During the last 4 years, Ms. N often required ECT treatment. Her current medication regimen prescribed by an outpatient psychiatrist includes clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily, both for bipolar disorder.

EVALUATION An unusual mix of symptoms

In the ED, Ms. N undergoes a CT of the head, which is found to be nonacute. Laboratory results show that her white blood cell count is 14.3 K/µL, which is mildly elevated. Results from a urinalysis and electrocardiogram (ECG) are unremarkable.

After Ms. N punches a radiology technician, she is administered IV lorazepam, 2 mg once, for her agitation. Twenty minutes after receiving IV lorazepam, she is calm and cooperative. However, approximately 4 hours later, Ms. N is yelling, tearful, and expressing delusions of grandeur—she believes she is God.

After she is admitted to the medical floor, Ms. N is seen by our consultation and liaison psychiatry service. She exhibits several signs of catatonia, including grasp reflex, gegenhalten (oppositional paratonia), waxy flexibility, and echolalia. Ms. N also has an episode of urinary incontinence. At some parts of the day, she is alert and oriented to self and location; at other times, she is somnolent and disoriented. The treatment team continues Ms. N’s previous medication regimen of clozapine, 300 mg twice daily, and clonazepam, 0.5 mg twice daily. Unfortunately, at times Ms. N spits out and hides her administered oral medications, which leads to the decision to discontinue clozapine. Once medically cleared, Ms. N is transferred to the psychiatric floor.

[polldaddy:10869949]

Continue to: TREATMENT

TREATMENT Bifrontal ECT initiated

On hospital Day 3 Ms. N is administered a trial of IM lorazepam, titrated up to 6 mg/d (maximum tolerated dose) while the treatment team initiates the legal process to conduct ECT because she is unable to give consent. Once Ms. N begins tolerating oral medications, amantadine, 100 mg twice daily, is added to treat her catatonia. As in prior hospitalizations, Ms. N is unresponsive to pharmacotherapy alone for her catatonic symptoms. On hospital Day 8, forced ECT is granted, which is 5 days after the process of filing paperwork was started. Bifrontal ECT is utilized with the following settings: frequency 70 Hz, pulse width 1.5 ms, 100% energy dose, 504 mC. Ms. N does not experience a significant improvement until she receives 10 ECT treatments as part of a 3-times-per-week acute series protocol. The Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and the KANNER scale are used to monitor her progress. Her initial BFCRS score is 17 and initial KANNER scale, part 2 score is 26.

Ms. N spends a total of 61 days in the hospital, which is significantly longer than her previous hospital admissions on our psychiatric unit; these previous admissions were for treatment of both stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia. This increased length of stay coincides with a significantly longer duration of untreated catatonia. Knowledge of her history of both the stuporous and excited subtypes of catatonia would have allowed for faster diagnosis and treatment.¹

The authors’ observations

Originally conceptualized as a separate syndrome by Karl Kahlbaum, catatonia was considered only as a specifier for neuropsychiatric conditions (primarily schizophrenia) as recently as DSM-IV-TR.² DSM-5 describes catatonia as a marked psychomotor disturbance and acknowledges its connection to schizophrenia by keeping it in the same chapter.³ DSM-5 includes separate diagnoses for catatonia, catatonia due to a general medical condition, and unspecified catatonia (for catatonia without a known underlying disorder).³ A recent meta-analysis found the prevalence of catatonia is higher in patients with medical/neurologic illness, bipolar disorder, and autism than in those with schizophrenia.⁴

Table 1³ highlights the DSM-5 criteria for catatonia. DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 symptoms to be present, although symptoms may fluctuate with time.³ If a clinician is not specifically looking for catatonia, it can be a difficult syndrome to diagnose. Does rigidity indicate catatonia, or excessive dopamine blockade from an antipsychotic? How can seemingly contradictory symptoms be part of the same syndrome? Many clinicians associate catatonia with the stuporous subtype (immobility, posturing, catalepsy), which is more prevalent, but the excited subtype, which may involve severe agitation, autonomic dysfunction, and impaired consciousness, can be lethal.² The diversity in presentation of catatonia is not unlike the challenging variety of symptoms of heart attacks.

A retrospective study of all adults admitted to a hospital found that only 41% of patients who met criteria for catatonia received this diagnosis.⁵ Further complicating the diagnosis, delirium and catatonia can co-exist; one study found this was the case in 1 of 3 critically ill patients.⁶ DSM-5 criteria for catatonia due to another medical condition exclude the diagnosis if delirium is present, but this study and others suggest this needs to be reconsidered.³   

Continue to: A standardized evaluation is key

A standardized evaluation is key

Just as a patient who presents with chest pain requires a standardized evaluation, including a pertinent history, laboratory workup, and ECG, psychiatrists may also use standardized diagnostic instruments to aid in the diagnosis of catatonia. One study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia found that using a standardized diagnostic procedure for catatonia resulted in a 7-fold increase in the diagnosis.⁷ The BFCRS is the most common standardized instrument for catatonia, likely due to its high inter-rater reliability.⁸ Other scales include the KANNER scale and Northoff Catatonia Scale, which emphasize different aspects of the disease or for certain clinical populations (eg, the KANNER scale adjusts for patients who are nonverbal at baseline). One study suggested that BFCRS has lower reliability for less-severe illness.⁹ These differences emphasize that psychiatry does not have a thorough understanding of the intricacies of catatonia. However, using validated screening tools can lead to more consistent diagnoses and continue important research on this often-misunderstood illness.

Dangers of untreated catatonia

Rapid treatment of catatonia is necessary to prevent mortality. A study of patients in Kentucky’s state psychiatric hospitals found that untreated catatonia with resultant death from pulmonary embolism was the leading cause of preventable death.¹⁰ A 17-year retrospective study of patients with schizophrenia admitted to 1 hospital found that those with catatonia were >4 times as likely to die during hospitalization than those without catatonia.¹¹ The significant morbidity and mortality from untreated catatonia are typically attributed to the consequences of poorly controlled movements, immobility, autonomic instability, and poor/no oral intake. Reduced oral intake can result in malnutrition, dehydration, arrhythmias, and increased risk of infections. Furthermore, chronic catatonic episodes are more difficult to treat.¹² In addition to the aggressive management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, it is vital to evaluate relevant medical etiologies that may be contributing to the syndrome (Table 2¹³). Tracking vital signs and laboratory values, such as creatine kinase, electrolytes, and complete blood count, is required to ensure the medical condition does not become life-threatening.

Treatment options

Studies and expert opinion suggest that benzodiazepines (specifically lorazepam, because it is the most studied agent) are the first-line treatment for catatonia. A lorazepam challenge test—providing 1 or 2 mg of IV lorazepam—is considered diagnostic and therapeutic given the high rate of response within 10 minutes.¹⁴ Patients with limited response to lorazepam or who are medically compromised should undergo ECT. Electroconvulsive therapy is considered the gold-standard treatment for catatonia; estimated response rates range from 59% to 100%, even in patients who fail to respond to pharmacotherapy.¹⁵ Although highly effective, ECT is often hindered by the time required to initiate treatment, stigma, lack of access, and other logistical challenges. 

Table 3^14-18 highlights the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options for catatonia. Some researchers have suggested a zolpidem challenge test could augment lorazepam because some patients respond only to zolpidem.¹⁴ The efficacy of these medications along with some evidence of anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate medications, such as amantadine and memantine, suggest that there is an underactivation of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and overactivation of glutamate in the brain,¹⁶ with some researchers noting the similarity between catatonia and the fear response.¹⁷ Consequently, excessive dopamine D2 antagonism or withdrawal of dopamine agonists can either bring on or worsen the symptoms of catatonia, with researchers identifying an overlap between neuroleptic malignant syndrome and catatonia.¹⁸ Although some studies suggest that second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), particularly lower-potency agents such as olanzapine, may help treat catatonia, other studies suggest using caution when initiating in patients without an underlying psychotic illness. The treating clinician may want to consider switching a patient receiving a high-potency antipsychotic to one with a lower potency, lowering the dose of high-potency agent, or discontinuing the medication altogether.

Ms. N was ultimately diagnosed with bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, with psychotic and catatonic features. Ms. N had symptoms of mania including grandiosity, periods of lack of sleep, delusions as well as depressive symptoms of tearfulness and low mood. The treatment team had considered that Ms. N had delirious mania because she had fluctuating sensorium, which included varying degrees of orientation and ability to answer questioning. However, the literature supporting the differentiation between delirious mania and excited catatonia is unclear, and both conditions may respond to ECT.¹⁸ A diagnosis of catatonia allowed the team to use rating scales to track Ms. N’s progress by monitoring for specific signs, such as grasp reflex and waxy flexibility.

Continue to: OUTCOME

OUTCOME Return to baseline

Before discharge, Ms. N’s BFCRS score decreases from the initial score of 17 to 0, and her KANNER scale score decreases from the initial score of 26 to 4, which correlates with vast improvement in clinical presentation. Once Ms. N completes the acute ECT treatment, she returns to her baseline level of functioning, and is discharged to live with her boyfriend. She is advised to continue weekly ECT for the first several months to ensure clinical stability. This regimen is later transitioned to biweekly and then monthly. Electroconvulsive therapy protocols from previous research were utilized in Ms. N’s case, but ultimately the lowest number of ECT treatments needed to maintain stability is determined clinically over many years.¹⁹ Ms. N is discharged on aripiprazole, 15 mg/d; bupropion ER, 300 mg/d (added after depressive symptoms emerge while catatonia symptoms improve midway through her lengthy hospitalization); and memantine, 10 mg/d. Ideally, clozapine would have been continued; however, due to her history of nonadherence and frequent restarting of the medication at a low dose, clozapine was discontinued and aripiprazole initiated.

More than 1 year later, Ms. N remains stable and continues to receive monthly ECT maintenance treatments.

Bottom Line

Catatonia should always be considered in a patient who presents with acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rapid diagnosis with standardized screening instruments and aggressive treatment are vital to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Related Resource

• Freudenreich O, Francis A, Fricchione GL. Chapter 9. Psychosis, mania, and catatonia. In: Levenson, James L, ed. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing textbook of psychosomatic medicine and consultation-liaison psychiatry. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2019.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion ER • Wellbutrin XL
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Metoclopramide • Reglan
Memantine • Namenda
Topiramate • Topamax
Zolpidem • Ambien

For more than 70 years, Fountain House has offered a lifeline for people living with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and other serious mental illnesses through a community-based model of care. When he took the helm less than 2 years ago, CEO and President Ashwin Vasan, ScM, MD, PhD, wanted a greater focus on crisis-based solutions and a wider, public health approach.

Courtesy Fountain House

That goal was put to the test in 2020, when SARS-CoV-2 shuttered all in-person activities. The nonprofit quickly rebounded, creating a digital platform, engaging with its members through online courses, face-to-face check-ins, and delivery services, and expanding partnerships to connect with individuals facing homelessness and involved in the criminal justice system. Those activities not only brought the community together – it expanded Fountain House’s footprint.

Among its membership of more than 2,000 people in New York City, about 70% connected to the digital platform. “We also enrolled more than 200 brand new members during the pandemic who had never set foot in the physical mental health “clubhouse.” They derived value as well,” Dr. Vasan said in an interview. Nationally, the program is replicated at more than 200 locations and serves about 60,000 people in almost 40 states. During the pandemic, Fountain House began formalizing affiliation opportunities with this network.

Now that the pandemic is showing signs of receding, Fountain House faces new challenges operating as a possible hybrid model. “More than three-quarters of our members say they want to continue to engage virtually as well as in person,” Dr. Vasan said. As of this writing, Fountain House is enjoying a soft reopening, slowly welcoming in-person activities. What this will look like in the coming weeks and months is a work in progress, he added. “We don’t know yet how people are going to prefer to engage.”
 

A role in the public policy conversation

Founded by a small group of former psychiatric patients in the late 1940s, Fountain House has since expanded from a single building in New York City to more than 300 replications in the United States and around the world. It originated the “clubhouse” model of mental health support: a community-based approach that helps members improve health, and break social and economic isolation by reclaiming social, educational, and work skills, and connecting with core services, including supportive housing and community-based primary and behavioral health care (Arts Psychother. 2012 Feb 39[1]:25-30).

Serious mental illness (SMI) is growing more pronounced as a crisis, not just in the people it affects, “but in all of the attendant and preventable social and economic crises that intersect with it, whether it’s increasing health care costs, homelessness, or criminalization,” Dr. Vasan said.

After 73 years, Fountain House is just beginning to gain relevance as a tool to help solve these intersecting public policy crises, he added.

“We’ve demonstrated through evaluation data that it reduces hospitalization rates, health care costs, reliance on emergency departments, homelessness, and recidivism to the criminal justice system,” he said. Health care costs for members are more than 20% lower than for others with mental illness, and recidivism rates among those with a criminal history are less than 5%.

Others familiar with Fountain House say the model delivers on its charge to improve quality of life for people with SMI.

It’s a great referral source for people who are under good mental health control, whether it’s therapy or a combination of therapy and medications, Robert T. London, MD, a practicing psychiatrist in New York who is not affiliated with Fountain House but has referred patients to the organization over the years, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Le Melle

“The housing first evidence-based model, as designed and implemented by Pathways to Housing program in New York in the early 90s, accepted people who were street homeless or in shelters, not involved in mental health treatment, and actively using substances into scatter-site apartments and wrapped services around them,” she said.

Dr. Le Melle, who is not affiliated with Fountain House, views it more as a supportive employment program that uses a recovery-oriented, community-based, jointly peer-run approach to engage members in vocational/educational programming. It also happens to have some supportive housing for its members, she added.

Dr. Vasan believes Fountain House could expand beyond a community model. The organization has been moving out from its history, evolving into a model that could be integrated as standard of care and standard of practice for community health, he said. Fountain House is part of Clubhouse International, an umbrella organization that received the American Psychiatric Association’s 2021 special presidential commendation award during its virtual annual meeting for the group’s use of “the evidence-based, cost-effective clubhouse model of psychosocial rehabilitation as a leading recovery resource for people living with mental illness around the world.”
 

How medication issues are handled

Fountain House doesn’t directly provide medication to its members. According to Dr. Vasan, psychiatric care is just one component of recovery for serious mental illness.

“We talk about Fountain House as a main vortex in a triangle of recovery. You need health care, housing, and community. The part that’s been neglected the most is community intervention, the social infrastructure for people who are deeply isolated and marginalized,” he said. “We know that people who have that infrastructure, and are stably housed, are then more likely to engage in community-based psychiatry and primary care. And in turn, people who are in stable clinical care can more durably engage in the community programming Fountain House offers.”

Health care and clinical care are changing. It’s becoming more person-centered and community based. “We need to move with the times and we have, in the last 2 decades,” he said.

Historically, Fountain House has owned and operated its own clinic in New York City. More recently, it partnered with Sun River Health and Ryan Health, two large federally qualified health center networks in New York, so that members receive access to psychiatric and medical care. It has also expanded similar partnerships with Columbia University, New York University, and other health care systems to ensure its members have access to sustainable clinical care as a part of the community conditions and resources needed to recover and thrive.

Those familiar with the organization don’t see the absence of a medication program as a negative factor. If Fountain House doesn’t provide psychiatric medications, “that tells me the patients are under control and able to function in a community setting” that focuses on rehabilitation, Dr. London said.

It’s true that psychiatric medication treatment is an essential part of a patient’s recovery journey, Dr. Le Melle said. “Treatment with medications can be done in a recovery-oriented way. However, the Fountain House model has been designed to keep these separate, and this model works well for most” of the members.

As long as members and staff are willing to collaborate with treatment providers outside of the clubhouse, when necessary, this model of separation between work and treatment can work really well, she added.

“There are some people who need a more integrated system of care. There is no ‘one size fits all’ program that can meet everyone’s needs,” said Dr. Le Melle. The absence of onsite treatment at Fountain House, to some extent “adds to the milieu and allows people to focus on other aspects of their lives besides their illness.”

This hasn’t always been the case in traditionally funded behavioral health programs, she continued. Most mental health clinics, because of fiscal structures, reimbursement, and staffing costs, focus more on psychotherapy and medication management than on other aspects of peoples’ lives, such as their recovery goals.

The bottom line is rehabilitation in medicine works – whether it’s for a mental health disorder, broken leg, arm, or stroke, Dr. London said. “Fountain House’s focus is integrating a person into society by helping them to think differently and interact socially in groups and learn some skills.”

Through cognitive-behavioral therapies, a person with mental illness can learn how to act differently. “The brain is always in a growing process where you learn and develop new ideas, make connections,” Dr. London said. “New protein molecules get created and stored; changes occur with the neurotransmitters.”

Overall, the Fountain House model is great for supporting and engaging people with serious mental illness, Dr. Le Melle said. “It provides a literal place, a community, and a safe environment that helps people to embrace their recovery journey. It is also great at supporting people in their engagement with vocational training and employment.”

Ideally, she would like Fountain House to grow and become more inclusive by engaging people who live with both mental illness and substance use.
 

COVID-19 changes the rules

The most difficult challenge for health care and other institutions is to keep individuals with SMI engaged and visible so that they can find access to health care and benefits – and avoid acute hospitalization or medical care. “That’s our goal, to prevent the worst effects and respond accordingly,” Dr. Vasan said.

SARS-CoV-2 forced the program to reevaluate its daily operations so that it could maintain crucial connections with its members.

Dr. Vasan and his staff immediately closed the clubhouse when COVID-19 first hit, transitioning to direct community-based services that provided one-on-one outreach, and meal, medication, and clothing delivery. “Even if people couldn’t visit our clubhouse, we wanted them to feel that sense of community connection, even if it was to drop off meals at their doorstep,” he said.

Donning personal protective equipment, his staff and interested program participants went out into the communities to do this personal outreach. At the height of pandemic in New York City, “we weren’t sure what to do,” as far as keeping safe, he admitted. Nevertheless, he believes this outreach work was lifesaving in that it kept people connected to the clubhouse.

As Fountain House worked to maintain in-person contact, it also built a digital community to keep the live community together. This wasn’t just about posting on a Facebook page – it was interactive, Dr. Vasan noted. An online group made masks for the community and sold them for people outside of Fountain House. Capacity building courses instructed members on writing resumes, looking for jobs, or filling out applications.

There’s an assumption that people with SMI lack the skills to navigate technology. Some of the hallmarks of SMI are demotivation and lack of confidence, and logging onto platforms and email can be challenging for some people, he acknowledged. Over the last 18 months, Fountain House’s virtual clubhouse proved this theory wrong, Dr. Vasan said. “There are a great number of people with serious mental illness who have basic digital skills and are already using technology, or are very eager to learn,” he said.

For the subset of members who did get discouraged by the virtual platform, Fountain House responded by giving them one-on-one home support and digital literacy training to help them stay motivated and engaged.

Fountain House also expanded partnerships during the pandemic, working with programs such as the Fortune Society to bring people with SMI from the criminal justice system into Fountain House. “We’re doing this either virtually or through outdoor, public park programs with groups such as the Times Square Alliance and Fort Greene Park Conservancy to ensure we’re meeting people where they are, at a time of a rising health crisis,” Dr. Vasan said.
 

Moving on to a hybrid model

At the height of the pandemic, it was easy to engage members through creative programming. People were craving socialization. Now that people are getting vaccinated and interacting inside and outside, some understandable apathy is forming toward digital platforms, Dr. Vasan said.

“The onus is on us now to look at that data and to design something new that can keep people engaged in a hybrid model,” he added.

June 14, 2021, marked Fountain House’s soft opening. “This was a big day for us, to work through the kinks,” he said. At press time, the plan was to fully reopen the clubhouse in a few weeks – if transmission and case rates stay low.

It’s unclear at this point how many people will engage with Fountain House on a daily, in-person basis. Some people might want to come to the clubhouse just a few days a week and use the online platform on other days.

“We’re doing a series of experiments to really understand what different offerings we need to make. For example, perhaps we need to have 24-7 programming on the digital platform. That way, you could access it on demand,” said Dr. Vasan. The goal is to create a menu of choices for members so that it becomes flexible and meets their needs.

Long term, Dr. Vasan hopes the digital platform will become a scalable technology. “We want this to be used not just by Fountain House, but for programs and in markets that don’t have clubhouses.” Health systems or insurance companies would benefit from software like this because it addresses one of the most difficult aspects for this population: keeping them engaged and visible to their systems, Dr. Vasan added.

“I think the most important lesson here is we’re designing for a group of people that no one designs for. No one’s paying attention to people with serious mental illness. Nor have they ever, really. Fountain House has always been their advocate and partner. It’s great that we can do this with them, and for them.”

Dr. Vasan, also an epidemiologist, serves as assistant professor of clinical population, and family health and medicine, at Columbia University. Dr. London and Dr. Le Melle have no conflicts of interest.
 

Two steps back, three steps forward

For some of its members, Fountain House provides more than just a sense of place. In an interview, longtime member and New York City native Rich Courage, 61, discussed his mental illness challenges and the role the organization played in reclaiming his life, leading to a new career as a counselor.

Courtesy Rich Courage

Question: What made you seek out Fountain House? Are you still a member?

Rich Courage: I’ve been a member since 2001. I was in a day program at Postgraduate, on West 36th Street. They had this huge theater program, and I was a part of that. But the program fell apart and I didn’t know what to do with myself. A friend of mine told me about Fountain House. I asked what it did, and the friend said that it puts people with mental health challenges back to life, to work, to school. I was making some art, some collages, and I heard they had an art gallery.

Seeing Fountain House, I was amazed. It was this very friendly, warm, cozy place. The staff was nice; the members were welcoming. The next thing you know it’s 2021, and here I am, a peer counselor at Fountain House. I work on “the warm line,” doing the evening shift. People call in who have crises, but a lot of them call in because they’re lonely and want someone to talk to. As a peer counselor, I don’t tell people what to do, but I do offer support. I encourage. I ask questions that enable them to figure out their own problems. And I tell stories anecdotally of people that I’ve known and about recovery.

I struggled with bad depression when I was in my 20s. My mother died, and I lost everything. Coming to Fountain House and being part of this community is unlike anything I’d ever experienced. People weren’t just sitting around and talking about their problems; they were doing something about it. They were going back to school, to work, to social engagements, and the world at large. And it wasn’t perfect or linear. It was two steps back, three steps forward.

That’s exactly what I was doing. I had a lot of self-esteem and confidence issues, and behavioral stuff. My mind was wired a certain way. I had hospitalizations; I was in psychiatric wards. I had a suicide attempt in 2006, which was nearly successful. I was feeling social, mental, and emotional pain for so long. The community has been invaluable for me. Hearing other people’s stories, being accepted, has been wonderful.

I’ve been down and now I’m up, on an upward trajectory.
 

Question: How else has Fountain House made a difference in your life?

RC: I’m in a Fountain House residence in a one-bedroom, and it’s the most stable housing I’ve ever had in 61 years. So I’ve gotten housing and I’ve gotten a job, which is all great, because it’s aided me in becoming a full human being. But it’s really eased my suffering and enabled me to feel some joy and have some life instead of this shadow existence that I had been living for 30 years.

Fountain House has different units, and I’ve been in the communications unit – we put out the weekly paper and handle all the mail. The unit has computers, and I was able to work on my writing. I wrote a play called "The Very Last Dance of Homeless Joe." We’ve had staged readings at Fountain House, and 200 people have seen it over 2 years. We Zoomed it through the virtual community. It was very successful. A recording of the staged reading won third place at a festival in Florida.

In September, it will be an off-Broadway show. It’s a play about the homeless, but it’s not depressing; it’s very uplifting.
 

Question: Did you stay connected to Fountain House during the pandemic, either through the digital community or through services they provided? What was this experience like for you?

RC: Ashwin [Vasan] had been here 6 months, and he saw the pandemic coming. During a programming meeting he said, “We need a virtual community, and we need it now.” None of us knew what Zoom was, how the mute button worked. But it’s been wonderful for me. I’m a performer, so I was able to get on to Facebook every day and post a song. Some of it was spoofs about COVID; some were dedications to members. I ended up connecting with a member in Minnesota who used to be a neighbor of mine. We had lost contact, and we reconnected through Fountain House.

Question: What would you tell someone who might need this service?

RC: We’ve partially reopened the clubhouse. In July we’ll be doing tours again. I’d say, come take a tour and see the different social, economic, housing, and educational opportunities. We have a home and garden unit that decorates the place. We have a gym, a wellness unit. But these are just things. The real heart is the people.

As a unit leader recently told me, “We’re not a clinic. We’re not a revolving door. We forge relationships with members that last in our hearts and minds for a lifetime. Even if it’s not in my job description, if there’s anything in my power that I could do to help a member ease their suffering, I will do it.”

For more than 70 years, Fountain House has offered a lifeline for people living with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and other serious mental illnesses through a community-based model of care. When he took the helm less than 2 years ago, CEO and President Ashwin Vasan, ScM, MD, PhD, wanted a greater focus on crisis-based solutions and a wider, public health approach.

Courtesy Fountain House

That goal was put to the test in 2020, when SARS-CoV-2 shuttered all in-person activities. The nonprofit quickly rebounded, creating a digital platform, engaging with its members through online courses, face-to-face check-ins, and delivery services, and expanding partnerships to connect with individuals facing homelessness and involved in the criminal justice system. Those activities not only brought the community together – it expanded Fountain House’s footprint.

Among its membership of more than 2,000 people in New York City, about 70% connected to the digital platform. “We also enrolled more than 200 brand new members during the pandemic who had never set foot in the physical mental health “clubhouse.” They derived value as well,” Dr. Vasan said in an interview. Nationally, the program is replicated at more than 200 locations and serves about 60,000 people in almost 40 states. During the pandemic, Fountain House began formalizing affiliation opportunities with this network.

Now that the pandemic is showing signs of receding, Fountain House faces new challenges operating as a possible hybrid model. “More than three-quarters of our members say they want to continue to engage virtually as well as in person,” Dr. Vasan said. As of this writing, Fountain House is enjoying a soft reopening, slowly welcoming in-person activities. What this will look like in the coming weeks and months is a work in progress, he added. “We don’t know yet how people are going to prefer to engage.”
 

A role in the public policy conversation

Founded by a small group of former psychiatric patients in the late 1940s, Fountain House has since expanded from a single building in New York City to more than 300 replications in the United States and around the world. It originated the “clubhouse” model of mental health support: a community-based approach that helps members improve health, and break social and economic isolation by reclaiming social, educational, and work skills, and connecting with core services, including supportive housing and community-based primary and behavioral health care (Arts Psychother. 2012 Feb 39[1]:25-30).

Serious mental illness (SMI) is growing more pronounced as a crisis, not just in the people it affects, “but in all of the attendant and preventable social and economic crises that intersect with it, whether it’s increasing health care costs, homelessness, or criminalization,” Dr. Vasan said.

After 73 years, Fountain House is just beginning to gain relevance as a tool to help solve these intersecting public policy crises, he added.

“We’ve demonstrated through evaluation data that it reduces hospitalization rates, health care costs, reliance on emergency departments, homelessness, and recidivism to the criminal justice system,” he said. Health care costs for members are more than 20% lower than for others with mental illness, and recidivism rates among those with a criminal history are less than 5%.

Others familiar with Fountain House say the model delivers on its charge to improve quality of life for people with SMI.

It’s a great referral source for people who are under good mental health control, whether it’s therapy or a combination of therapy and medications, Robert T. London, MD, a practicing psychiatrist in New York who is not affiliated with Fountain House but has referred patients to the organization over the years, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Le Melle

“The housing first evidence-based model, as designed and implemented by Pathways to Housing program in New York in the early 90s, accepted people who were street homeless or in shelters, not involved in mental health treatment, and actively using substances into scatter-site apartments and wrapped services around them,” she said.

Dr. Le Melle, who is not affiliated with Fountain House, views it more as a supportive employment program that uses a recovery-oriented, community-based, jointly peer-run approach to engage members in vocational/educational programming. It also happens to have some supportive housing for its members, she added.

Dr. Vasan believes Fountain House could expand beyond a community model. The organization has been moving out from its history, evolving into a model that could be integrated as standard of care and standard of practice for community health, he said. Fountain House is part of Clubhouse International, an umbrella organization that received the American Psychiatric Association’s 2021 special presidential commendation award during its virtual annual meeting for the group’s use of “the evidence-based, cost-effective clubhouse model of psychosocial rehabilitation as a leading recovery resource for people living with mental illness around the world.”
 

How medication issues are handled

Fountain House doesn’t directly provide medication to its members. According to Dr. Vasan, psychiatric care is just one component of recovery for serious mental illness.

“We talk about Fountain House as a main vortex in a triangle of recovery. You need health care, housing, and community. The part that’s been neglected the most is community intervention, the social infrastructure for people who are deeply isolated and marginalized,” he said. “We know that people who have that infrastructure, and are stably housed, are then more likely to engage in community-based psychiatry and primary care. And in turn, people who are in stable clinical care can more durably engage in the community programming Fountain House offers.”

Health care and clinical care are changing. It’s becoming more person-centered and community based. “We need to move with the times and we have, in the last 2 decades,” he said.

Historically, Fountain House has owned and operated its own clinic in New York City. More recently, it partnered with Sun River Health and Ryan Health, two large federally qualified health center networks in New York, so that members receive access to psychiatric and medical care. It has also expanded similar partnerships with Columbia University, New York University, and other health care systems to ensure its members have access to sustainable clinical care as a part of the community conditions and resources needed to recover and thrive.

Those familiar with the organization don’t see the absence of a medication program as a negative factor. If Fountain House doesn’t provide psychiatric medications, “that tells me the patients are under control and able to function in a community setting” that focuses on rehabilitation, Dr. London said.

It’s true that psychiatric medication treatment is an essential part of a patient’s recovery journey, Dr. Le Melle said. “Treatment with medications can be done in a recovery-oriented way. However, the Fountain House model has been designed to keep these separate, and this model works well for most” of the members.

As long as members and staff are willing to collaborate with treatment providers outside of the clubhouse, when necessary, this model of separation between work and treatment can work really well, she added.

“There are some people who need a more integrated system of care. There is no ‘one size fits all’ program that can meet everyone’s needs,” said Dr. Le Melle. The absence of onsite treatment at Fountain House, to some extent “adds to the milieu and allows people to focus on other aspects of their lives besides their illness.”

This hasn’t always been the case in traditionally funded behavioral health programs, she continued. Most mental health clinics, because of fiscal structures, reimbursement, and staffing costs, focus more on psychotherapy and medication management than on other aspects of peoples’ lives, such as their recovery goals.

The bottom line is rehabilitation in medicine works – whether it’s for a mental health disorder, broken leg, arm, or stroke, Dr. London said. “Fountain House’s focus is integrating a person into society by helping them to think differently and interact socially in groups and learn some skills.”

Through cognitive-behavioral therapies, a person with mental illness can learn how to act differently. “The brain is always in a growing process where you learn and develop new ideas, make connections,” Dr. London said. “New protein molecules get created and stored; changes occur with the neurotransmitters.”

Overall, the Fountain House model is great for supporting and engaging people with serious mental illness, Dr. Le Melle said. “It provides a literal place, a community, and a safe environment that helps people to embrace their recovery journey. It is also great at supporting people in their engagement with vocational training and employment.”

Ideally, she would like Fountain House to grow and become more inclusive by engaging people who live with both mental illness and substance use.
 

COVID-19 changes the rules

The most difficult challenge for health care and other institutions is to keep individuals with SMI engaged and visible so that they can find access to health care and benefits – and avoid acute hospitalization or medical care. “That’s our goal, to prevent the worst effects and respond accordingly,” Dr. Vasan said.

SARS-CoV-2 forced the program to reevaluate its daily operations so that it could maintain crucial connections with its members.

Dr. Vasan and his staff immediately closed the clubhouse when COVID-19 first hit, transitioning to direct community-based services that provided one-on-one outreach, and meal, medication, and clothing delivery. “Even if people couldn’t visit our clubhouse, we wanted them to feel that sense of community connection, even if it was to drop off meals at their doorstep,” he said.

Donning personal protective equipment, his staff and interested program participants went out into the communities to do this personal outreach. At the height of pandemic in New York City, “we weren’t sure what to do,” as far as keeping safe, he admitted. Nevertheless, he believes this outreach work was lifesaving in that it kept people connected to the clubhouse.

As Fountain House worked to maintain in-person contact, it also built a digital community to keep the live community together. This wasn’t just about posting on a Facebook page – it was interactive, Dr. Vasan noted. An online group made masks for the community and sold them for people outside of Fountain House. Capacity building courses instructed members on writing resumes, looking for jobs, or filling out applications.

There’s an assumption that people with SMI lack the skills to navigate technology. Some of the hallmarks of SMI are demotivation and lack of confidence, and logging onto platforms and email can be challenging for some people, he acknowledged. Over the last 18 months, Fountain House’s virtual clubhouse proved this theory wrong, Dr. Vasan said. “There are a great number of people with serious mental illness who have basic digital skills and are already using technology, or are very eager to learn,” he said.

For the subset of members who did get discouraged by the virtual platform, Fountain House responded by giving them one-on-one home support and digital literacy training to help them stay motivated and engaged.

Fountain House also expanded partnerships during the pandemic, working with programs such as the Fortune Society to bring people with SMI from the criminal justice system into Fountain House. “We’re doing this either virtually or through outdoor, public park programs with groups such as the Times Square Alliance and Fort Greene Park Conservancy to ensure we’re meeting people where they are, at a time of a rising health crisis,” Dr. Vasan said.
 

Moving on to a hybrid model

At the height of the pandemic, it was easy to engage members through creative programming. People were craving socialization. Now that people are getting vaccinated and interacting inside and outside, some understandable apathy is forming toward digital platforms, Dr. Vasan said.

“The onus is on us now to look at that data and to design something new that can keep people engaged in a hybrid model,” he added.

June 14, 2021, marked Fountain House’s soft opening. “This was a big day for us, to work through the kinks,” he said. At press time, the plan was to fully reopen the clubhouse in a few weeks – if transmission and case rates stay low.

It’s unclear at this point how many people will engage with Fountain House on a daily, in-person basis. Some people might want to come to the clubhouse just a few days a week and use the online platform on other days.

“We’re doing a series of experiments to really understand what different offerings we need to make. For example, perhaps we need to have 24-7 programming on the digital platform. That way, you could access it on demand,” said Dr. Vasan. The goal is to create a menu of choices for members so that it becomes flexible and meets their needs.

Long term, Dr. Vasan hopes the digital platform will become a scalable technology. “We want this to be used not just by Fountain House, but for programs and in markets that don’t have clubhouses.” Health systems or insurance companies would benefit from software like this because it addresses one of the most difficult aspects for this population: keeping them engaged and visible to their systems, Dr. Vasan added.

“I think the most important lesson here is we’re designing for a group of people that no one designs for. No one’s paying attention to people with serious mental illness. Nor have they ever, really. Fountain House has always been their advocate and partner. It’s great that we can do this with them, and for them.”

Dr. Vasan, also an epidemiologist, serves as assistant professor of clinical population, and family health and medicine, at Columbia University. Dr. London and Dr. Le Melle have no conflicts of interest.
 

Two steps back, three steps forward

For some of its members, Fountain House provides more than just a sense of place. In an interview, longtime member and New York City native Rich Courage, 61, discussed his mental illness challenges and the role the organization played in reclaiming his life, leading to a new career as a counselor.

Courtesy Rich Courage

Question: What made you seek out Fountain House? Are you still a member?

Rich Courage: I’ve been a member since 2001. I was in a day program at Postgraduate, on West 36th Street. They had this huge theater program, and I was a part of that. But the program fell apart and I didn’t know what to do with myself. A friend of mine told me about Fountain House. I asked what it did, and the friend said that it puts people with mental health challenges back to life, to work, to school. I was making some art, some collages, and I heard they had an art gallery.

Seeing Fountain House, I was amazed. It was this very friendly, warm, cozy place. The staff was nice; the members were welcoming. The next thing you know it’s 2021, and here I am, a peer counselor at Fountain House. I work on “the warm line,” doing the evening shift. People call in who have crises, but a lot of them call in because they’re lonely and want someone to talk to. As a peer counselor, I don’t tell people what to do, but I do offer support. I encourage. I ask questions that enable them to figure out their own problems. And I tell stories anecdotally of people that I’ve known and about recovery.

I struggled with bad depression when I was in my 20s. My mother died, and I lost everything. Coming to Fountain House and being part of this community is unlike anything I’d ever experienced. People weren’t just sitting around and talking about their problems; they were doing something about it. They were going back to school, to work, to social engagements, and the world at large. And it wasn’t perfect or linear. It was two steps back, three steps forward.

That’s exactly what I was doing. I had a lot of self-esteem and confidence issues, and behavioral stuff. My mind was wired a certain way. I had hospitalizations; I was in psychiatric wards. I had a suicide attempt in 2006, which was nearly successful. I was feeling social, mental, and emotional pain for so long. The community has been invaluable for me. Hearing other people’s stories, being accepted, has been wonderful.

I’ve been down and now I’m up, on an upward trajectory.
 

Question: How else has Fountain House made a difference in your life?

RC: I’m in a Fountain House residence in a one-bedroom, and it’s the most stable housing I’ve ever had in 61 years. So I’ve gotten housing and I’ve gotten a job, which is all great, because it’s aided me in becoming a full human being. But it’s really eased my suffering and enabled me to feel some joy and have some life instead of this shadow existence that I had been living for 30 years.

Fountain House has different units, and I’ve been in the communications unit – we put out the weekly paper and handle all the mail. The unit has computers, and I was able to work on my writing. I wrote a play called "The Very Last Dance of Homeless Joe." We’ve had staged readings at Fountain House, and 200 people have seen it over 2 years. We Zoomed it through the virtual community. It was very successful. A recording of the staged reading won third place at a festival in Florida.

In September, it will be an off-Broadway show. It’s a play about the homeless, but it’s not depressing; it’s very uplifting.
 

Question: Did you stay connected to Fountain House during the pandemic, either through the digital community or through services they provided? What was this experience like for you?

RC: Ashwin [Vasan] had been here 6 months, and he saw the pandemic coming. During a programming meeting he said, “We need a virtual community, and we need it now.” None of us knew what Zoom was, how the mute button worked. But it’s been wonderful for me. I’m a performer, so I was able to get on to Facebook every day and post a song. Some of it was spoofs about COVID; some were dedications to members. I ended up connecting with a member in Minnesota who used to be a neighbor of mine. We had lost contact, and we reconnected through Fountain House.

Question: What would you tell someone who might need this service?

RC: We’ve partially reopened the clubhouse. In July we’ll be doing tours again. I’d say, come take a tour and see the different social, economic, housing, and educational opportunities. We have a home and garden unit that decorates the place. We have a gym, a wellness unit. But these are just things. The real heart is the people.

As a unit leader recently told me, “We’re not a clinic. We’re not a revolving door. We forge relationships with members that last in our hearts and minds for a lifetime. Even if it’s not in my job description, if there’s anything in my power that I could do to help a member ease their suffering, I will do it.”

For more than 70 years, Fountain House has offered a lifeline for people living with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and other serious mental illnesses through a community-based model of care. When he took the helm less than 2 years ago, CEO and President Ashwin Vasan, ScM, MD, PhD, wanted a greater focus on crisis-based solutions and a wider, public health approach.

Courtesy Fountain House

That goal was put to the test in 2020, when SARS-CoV-2 shuttered all in-person activities. The nonprofit quickly rebounded, creating a digital platform, engaging with its members through online courses, face-to-face check-ins, and delivery services, and expanding partnerships to connect with individuals facing homelessness and involved in the criminal justice system. Those activities not only brought the community together – it expanded Fountain House’s footprint.

Among its membership of more than 2,000 people in New York City, about 70% connected to the digital platform. “We also enrolled more than 200 brand new members during the pandemic who had never set foot in the physical mental health “clubhouse.” They derived value as well,” Dr. Vasan said in an interview. Nationally, the program is replicated at more than 200 locations and serves about 60,000 people in almost 40 states. During the pandemic, Fountain House began formalizing affiliation opportunities with this network.

Now that the pandemic is showing signs of receding, Fountain House faces new challenges operating as a possible hybrid model. “More than three-quarters of our members say they want to continue to engage virtually as well as in person,” Dr. Vasan said. As of this writing, Fountain House is enjoying a soft reopening, slowly welcoming in-person activities. What this will look like in the coming weeks and months is a work in progress, he added. “We don’t know yet how people are going to prefer to engage.”
 

A role in the public policy conversation

Founded by a small group of former psychiatric patients in the late 1940s, Fountain House has since expanded from a single building in New York City to more than 300 replications in the United States and around the world. It originated the “clubhouse” model of mental health support: a community-based approach that helps members improve health, and break social and economic isolation by reclaiming social, educational, and work skills, and connecting with core services, including supportive housing and community-based primary and behavioral health care (Arts Psychother. 2012 Feb 39[1]:25-30).

Serious mental illness (SMI) is growing more pronounced as a crisis, not just in the people it affects, “but in all of the attendant and preventable social and economic crises that intersect with it, whether it’s increasing health care costs, homelessness, or criminalization,” Dr. Vasan said.

After 73 years, Fountain House is just beginning to gain relevance as a tool to help solve these intersecting public policy crises, he added.

“We’ve demonstrated through evaluation data that it reduces hospitalization rates, health care costs, reliance on emergency departments, homelessness, and recidivism to the criminal justice system,” he said. Health care costs for members are more than 20% lower than for others with mental illness, and recidivism rates among those with a criminal history are less than 5%.

Others familiar with Fountain House say the model delivers on its charge to improve quality of life for people with SMI.

It’s a great referral source for people who are under good mental health control, whether it’s therapy or a combination of therapy and medications, Robert T. London, MD, a practicing psychiatrist in New York who is not affiliated with Fountain House but has referred patients to the organization over the years, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. Le Melle

“The housing first evidence-based model, as designed and implemented by Pathways to Housing program in New York in the early 90s, accepted people who were street homeless or in shelters, not involved in mental health treatment, and actively using substances into scatter-site apartments and wrapped services around them,” she said.

Dr. Le Melle, who is not affiliated with Fountain House, views it more as a supportive employment program that uses a recovery-oriented, community-based, jointly peer-run approach to engage members in vocational/educational programming. It also happens to have some supportive housing for its members, she added.

Dr. Vasan believes Fountain House could expand beyond a community model. The organization has been moving out from its history, evolving into a model that could be integrated as standard of care and standard of practice for community health, he said. Fountain House is part of Clubhouse International, an umbrella organization that received the American Psychiatric Association’s 2021 special presidential commendation award during its virtual annual meeting for the group’s use of “the evidence-based, cost-effective clubhouse model of psychosocial rehabilitation as a leading recovery resource for people living with mental illness around the world.”
 

How medication issues are handled

Fountain House doesn’t directly provide medication to its members. According to Dr. Vasan, psychiatric care is just one component of recovery for serious mental illness.

“We talk about Fountain House as a main vortex in a triangle of recovery. You need health care, housing, and community. The part that’s been neglected the most is community intervention, the social infrastructure for people who are deeply isolated and marginalized,” he said. “We know that people who have that infrastructure, and are stably housed, are then more likely to engage in community-based psychiatry and primary care. And in turn, people who are in stable clinical care can more durably engage in the community programming Fountain House offers.”

Health care and clinical care are changing. It’s becoming more person-centered and community based. “We need to move with the times and we have, in the last 2 decades,” he said.

Historically, Fountain House has owned and operated its own clinic in New York City. More recently, it partnered with Sun River Health and Ryan Health, two large federally qualified health center networks in New York, so that members receive access to psychiatric and medical care. It has also expanded similar partnerships with Columbia University, New York University, and other health care systems to ensure its members have access to sustainable clinical care as a part of the community conditions and resources needed to recover and thrive.

Those familiar with the organization don’t see the absence of a medication program as a negative factor. If Fountain House doesn’t provide psychiatric medications, “that tells me the patients are under control and able to function in a community setting” that focuses on rehabilitation, Dr. London said.

It’s true that psychiatric medication treatment is an essential part of a patient’s recovery journey, Dr. Le Melle said. “Treatment with medications can be done in a recovery-oriented way. However, the Fountain House model has been designed to keep these separate, and this model works well for most” of the members.

As long as members and staff are willing to collaborate with treatment providers outside of the clubhouse, when necessary, this model of separation between work and treatment can work really well, she added.

“There are some people who need a more integrated system of care. There is no ‘one size fits all’ program that can meet everyone’s needs,” said Dr. Le Melle. The absence of onsite treatment at Fountain House, to some extent “adds to the milieu and allows people to focus on other aspects of their lives besides their illness.”

This hasn’t always been the case in traditionally funded behavioral health programs, she continued. Most mental health clinics, because of fiscal structures, reimbursement, and staffing costs, focus more on psychotherapy and medication management than on other aspects of peoples’ lives, such as their recovery goals.

The bottom line is rehabilitation in medicine works – whether it’s for a mental health disorder, broken leg, arm, or stroke, Dr. London said. “Fountain House’s focus is integrating a person into society by helping them to think differently and interact socially in groups and learn some skills.”

Through cognitive-behavioral therapies, a person with mental illness can learn how to act differently. “The brain is always in a growing process where you learn and develop new ideas, make connections,” Dr. London said. “New protein molecules get created and stored; changes occur with the neurotransmitters.”

Overall, the Fountain House model is great for supporting and engaging people with serious mental illness, Dr. Le Melle said. “It provides a literal place, a community, and a safe environment that helps people to embrace their recovery journey. It is also great at supporting people in their engagement with vocational training and employment.”

Ideally, she would like Fountain House to grow and become more inclusive by engaging people who live with both mental illness and substance use.
 

COVID-19 changes the rules

The most difficult challenge for health care and other institutions is to keep individuals with SMI engaged and visible so that they can find access to health care and benefits – and avoid acute hospitalization or medical care. “That’s our goal, to prevent the worst effects and respond accordingly,” Dr. Vasan said.

SARS-CoV-2 forced the program to reevaluate its daily operations so that it could maintain crucial connections with its members.

Dr. Vasan and his staff immediately closed the clubhouse when COVID-19 first hit, transitioning to direct community-based services that provided one-on-one outreach, and meal, medication, and clothing delivery. “Even if people couldn’t visit our clubhouse, we wanted them to feel that sense of community connection, even if it was to drop off meals at their doorstep,” he said.

Donning personal protective equipment, his staff and interested program participants went out into the communities to do this personal outreach. At the height of pandemic in New York City, “we weren’t sure what to do,” as far as keeping safe, he admitted. Nevertheless, he believes this outreach work was lifesaving in that it kept people connected to the clubhouse.

As Fountain House worked to maintain in-person contact, it also built a digital community to keep the live community together. This wasn’t just about posting on a Facebook page – it was interactive, Dr. Vasan noted. An online group made masks for the community and sold them for people outside of Fountain House. Capacity building courses instructed members on writing resumes, looking for jobs, or filling out applications.

There’s an assumption that people with SMI lack the skills to navigate technology. Some of the hallmarks of SMI are demotivation and lack of confidence, and logging onto platforms and email can be challenging for some people, he acknowledged. Over the last 18 months, Fountain House’s virtual clubhouse proved this theory wrong, Dr. Vasan said. “There are a great number of people with serious mental illness who have basic digital skills and are already using technology, or are very eager to learn,” he said.

For the subset of members who did get discouraged by the virtual platform, Fountain House responded by giving them one-on-one home support and digital literacy training to help them stay motivated and engaged.

Fountain House also expanded partnerships during the pandemic, working with programs such as the Fortune Society to bring people with SMI from the criminal justice system into Fountain House. “We’re doing this either virtually or through outdoor, public park programs with groups such as the Times Square Alliance and Fort Greene Park Conservancy to ensure we’re meeting people where they are, at a time of a rising health crisis,” Dr. Vasan said.
 

Moving on to a hybrid model

At the height of the pandemic, it was easy to engage members through creative programming. People were craving socialization. Now that people are getting vaccinated and interacting inside and outside, some understandable apathy is forming toward digital platforms, Dr. Vasan said.

“The onus is on us now to look at that data and to design something new that can keep people engaged in a hybrid model,” he added.

June 14, 2021, marked Fountain House’s soft opening. “This was a big day for us, to work through the kinks,” he said. At press time, the plan was to fully reopen the clubhouse in a few weeks – if transmission and case rates stay low.

It’s unclear at this point how many people will engage with Fountain House on a daily, in-person basis. Some people might want to come to the clubhouse just a few days a week and use the online platform on other days.

“We’re doing a series of experiments to really understand what different offerings we need to make. For example, perhaps we need to have 24-7 programming on the digital platform. That way, you could access it on demand,” said Dr. Vasan. The goal is to create a menu of choices for members so that it becomes flexible and meets their needs.

Long term, Dr. Vasan hopes the digital platform will become a scalable technology. “We want this to be used not just by Fountain House, but for programs and in markets that don’t have clubhouses.” Health systems or insurance companies would benefit from software like this because it addresses one of the most difficult aspects for this population: keeping them engaged and visible to their systems, Dr. Vasan added.

“I think the most important lesson here is we’re designing for a group of people that no one designs for. No one’s paying attention to people with serious mental illness. Nor have they ever, really. Fountain House has always been their advocate and partner. It’s great that we can do this with them, and for them.”

Dr. Vasan, also an epidemiologist, serves as assistant professor of clinical population, and family health and medicine, at Columbia University. Dr. London and Dr. Le Melle have no conflicts of interest.
 

Two steps back, three steps forward

For some of its members, Fountain House provides more than just a sense of place. In an interview, longtime member and New York City native Rich Courage, 61, discussed his mental illness challenges and the role the organization played in reclaiming his life, leading to a new career as a counselor.

Courtesy Rich Courage

Question: What made you seek out Fountain House? Are you still a member?

Rich Courage: I’ve been a member since 2001. I was in a day program at Postgraduate, on West 36th Street. They had this huge theater program, and I was a part of that. But the program fell apart and I didn’t know what to do with myself. A friend of mine told me about Fountain House. I asked what it did, and the friend said that it puts people with mental health challenges back to life, to work, to school. I was making some art, some collages, and I heard they had an art gallery.

Seeing Fountain House, I was amazed. It was this very friendly, warm, cozy place. The staff was nice; the members were welcoming. The next thing you know it’s 2021, and here I am, a peer counselor at Fountain House. I work on “the warm line,” doing the evening shift. People call in who have crises, but a lot of them call in because they’re lonely and want someone to talk to. As a peer counselor, I don’t tell people what to do, but I do offer support. I encourage. I ask questions that enable them to figure out their own problems. And I tell stories anecdotally of people that I’ve known and about recovery.

I struggled with bad depression when I was in my 20s. My mother died, and I lost everything. Coming to Fountain House and being part of this community is unlike anything I’d ever experienced. People weren’t just sitting around and talking about their problems; they were doing something about it. They were going back to school, to work, to social engagements, and the world at large. And it wasn’t perfect or linear. It was two steps back, three steps forward.

That’s exactly what I was doing. I had a lot of self-esteem and confidence issues, and behavioral stuff. My mind was wired a certain way. I had hospitalizations; I was in psychiatric wards. I had a suicide attempt in 2006, which was nearly successful. I was feeling social, mental, and emotional pain for so long. The community has been invaluable for me. Hearing other people’s stories, being accepted, has been wonderful.

I’ve been down and now I’m up, on an upward trajectory.
 

Question: How else has Fountain House made a difference in your life?

RC: I’m in a Fountain House residence in a one-bedroom, and it’s the most stable housing I’ve ever had in 61 years. So I’ve gotten housing and I’ve gotten a job, which is all great, because it’s aided me in becoming a full human being. But it’s really eased my suffering and enabled me to feel some joy and have some life instead of this shadow existence that I had been living for 30 years.

Fountain House has different units, and I’ve been in the communications unit – we put out the weekly paper and handle all the mail. The unit has computers, and I was able to work on my writing. I wrote a play called "The Very Last Dance of Homeless Joe." We’ve had staged readings at Fountain House, and 200 people have seen it over 2 years. We Zoomed it through the virtual community. It was very successful. A recording of the staged reading won third place at a festival in Florida.

In September, it will be an off-Broadway show. It’s a play about the homeless, but it’s not depressing; it’s very uplifting.
 

Question: Did you stay connected to Fountain House during the pandemic, either through the digital community or through services they provided? What was this experience like for you?

RC: Ashwin [Vasan] had been here 6 months, and he saw the pandemic coming. During a programming meeting he said, “We need a virtual community, and we need it now.” None of us knew what Zoom was, how the mute button worked. But it’s been wonderful for me. I’m a performer, so I was able to get on to Facebook every day and post a song. Some of it was spoofs about COVID; some were dedications to members. I ended up connecting with a member in Minnesota who used to be a neighbor of mine. We had lost contact, and we reconnected through Fountain House.

Question: What would you tell someone who might need this service?

RC: We’ve partially reopened the clubhouse. In July we’ll be doing tours again. I’d say, come take a tour and see the different social, economic, housing, and educational opportunities. We have a home and garden unit that decorates the place. We have a gym, a wellness unit. But these are just things. The real heart is the people.

As a unit leader recently told me, “We’re not a clinic. We’re not a revolving door. We forge relationships with members that last in our hearts and minds for a lifetime. Even if it’s not in my job description, if there’s anything in my power that I could do to help a member ease their suffering, I will do it.”

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treating insulin resistance may improve treatment-resistant bipolar depression, early research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment with the diabetes drug metformin reversed insulin resistance in 50% of patients, and this reversal was associated with significant improvement of depressive symptoms. One patient randomly assigned to placebo also achieved a reversal of insulin resistance and improved depressive symptoms.

“The study needs replication, but this early clinical trial suggests that the mitigation of insulin resistance by metformin significantly improves depressive symptoms in a significant percentage of treatment resistant bipolar patients,” presenting author Jessica M. Gannon, MD, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), said in an interview.

“It looks like in treatment-resistant bipolar depression, treating insulin resistance is a way to get people well again, to get out of their depression,” principal investigator Cynthia Calkin, MD, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., added.

The findings were presented at the virtual American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2021 Annual Meeting.
 

Chronic inflammation

The study was a joint effort by UPMC and Dalhousie University and was sponsored by the Stanley Medical Research Institute.

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) who are obese tend to have more serious illness, with a more chronic course, more rapid cycling, and more morbidity. These patients also fail to respond to lithium, Dr. Calkin said.

“Untreated hyperinsulinemia could be contributing to a state of chronic inflammation and be involved in disease progression. So the question for me was, if we treat this insulin resistance, would patients get better?” she said.

Dr. Calkin said investigators used metformin because it is already used by psychiatrists for weight management in patients on antipsychotics.

“I wanted to test the drug that would work to reverse insulin resistance and that psychiatrists would be comfortable prescribing,” she said.

The 26-week study randomly assigned 20 patients to receive metformin and 25 patients to placebo.

All participants were 18 years and older, had a diagnosis of BD I or II, and had nonremitting BD defined by moderate depressive symptoms as measured on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of 15 or greater, despite being on optimal, guideline-compatible treatment.

All patients were stable, were on optimal doses of mood-stabilizing medications for at least 4 weeks prior to study entry, and had insulin resistance as defined by a Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) ≥1.8.

Characteristics were similar between the two groups, including baseline MADRS scores, body mass index, fasting glucose and insulin serum levels.

Patients were titrated up to 2,000 mg of metformin, which was the full dose, over 2 weeks and then maintained on treatment for a further 24 weeks.
 

Highly resistant population

The study’s primary outcome measure was change in MADRS score, with a response defined as a 30% reduction in MADRS from baseline.

By week 14, 10 metformin-treated patients (50%) and one patient in the placebo group (4%) no longer met insulin resistance criteria.

“It was a bit of a surprise to me that 50% of patients converted to being insulin sensitive again. When you use metformin to treat diabetes, people respond to it at more than a 50% rate, so I was expecting more people to respond,” Dr. Calkin said.

Nevertheless, the 11 patients who did respond and reversed insulin resistance achieved greater reduction in MADRS scores compared with nonconverters.

“Those who reversed their insulin resistance showed a remarkable resolution in their depressive symptoms. The reduction in MADRS scores began at week six, and were maintained through to the end of the study, and the Cohen’s d effect size for MADRS depression scores for converters was 0.52 at week 14 and 0.55 at week 26,” Dr. Calkin said.

“They were moderately to severely depressed going in, and at the end of the study, they had mild residual depressive symptoms, or they were completely well. These were very treatment-resistant patients.”

“All had failed, on average, eight or nine trials in their lifetime. When they came to us, nothing else would work. That’s one of the remarkable things about our results, just how well they responded when they had not responded to any other psychotropic medications. This approach may be very helpful for some patients,” Dr. Calkin said.
 

A holistic approach

Commenting on the study, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings need to be replicated but provide further support for the broader strategy of taking a holistic approach to the care of patients with difficult-to-treat mood disorders.

“Approximately one-half of people with treatment-resistant bipolar depression showed evidence of glucose resistance, and that adjunctive treatment with metformin, a medication that enhances insulin sensitivity, was moderately effective in normalizing glucose metabolism, with about a 50% response rate. Among those who experienced improved glucose regulation, there was a significant reduction in depressive symptoms,” he noted.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI). Dr. Calkin and Dr. Thase have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a once-daily oral medication, which is a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan (Lybalvi, Alkermes), for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder.

The drug is approved for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia and for adults with bipolar I disorder as a maintenance monotherapy or to treat acute manic or mixed episodes, as either monotherapy or an adjunct to lithium or valproate.

An atypical antipsychotic, the drug is a combination of olanzapine, an established antipsychotic medication, and samidorphan, a new chemical entity.

“Schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are complex, chronic diseases, and there remains a persistent need for new medications with proven efficacy and safety. Olanzapine, a highly efficacious atypical antipsychotic, is associated with significant side effects, including weight gain that may impact patients’ treatment experiences and limit its use. With the efficacy of olanzapine and evidence of less weight gain in patients with schizophrenia, Lybalvi brings a welcome new addition to our medication arsenal,” René S. Kahn, MD, PhD, Esther and Joseph Klingenstein professor & chair, department of psychiatry and Behavioral Health System at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in a company press release.

In a clinical development program, the drug demonstrated antipsychotic efficacy, safety, and tolerability, including significantly less weight gain than olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in the ENLIGHTEN-2 study.

The FDA approved Lybalvi under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on data from 27 clinical studies, including 18 studies evaluating Lybalvi and nine studies evaluating samidorphan alone and the FDA’s findings of the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Data suggest that olanzapine-associated weight gain is disease independent, the company reports.

“People living with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder must evaluate both efficacy and tolerability when making treatment decisions,” Paul Gionfriddo, president and CEO of Mental Health America, said in the same company press release. “We are grateful that companies like Alkermes are driven to continue developing new treatment options in psychiatry that seek to address unmet needs of our community, and we applaud the FDA for considering the experiences of individuals living with these conditions.” 

Alkermes expects to make Lybalvi available for patients in the fourth quarter of 2021.

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

Lithium is one of the most widely used mood stabilizers and is considered a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder because of its proven antimanic and prophylactic effects.¹ This medication also can reduce the risk of suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.² However, it has a narrow therapeutic index. While lithium has many reversible adverse effects—such as tremors, gastrointestinal disturbance, and thyroid dysfunction—its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects makes some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it.^3,4 In this article, we describe the relationship between lithium and nephrotoxicity, explain the apparent contradiction in published research regarding this topic, and offer suggestions for how to determine whether you should continue treatment with lithium for a patient who develops renal changes.

A lithium dilemma

Many psychiatrists have faced the dilemma of whether to discontinue lithium upon the appearance of glomerular renal changes and risk exposing patients to relapse or suicide, or to continue prescribing lithium and risk development of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Discontinuing lithium is not associated with the reversal of renal changes and kidney recovery,⁵ and exposes patients to psychiatric risks, such as mood recurrence and increased risk of suicide.⁶ Switching from lithium to another mood stabilizer is associated with a host of adverse effects, including diabetes mellitus and weight gain, and mood stabilizer use is not associated with reduced renal risk in patients with bipolar disorder.⁵ For example, Markowitz et al⁶ evaluated 24 patients with renal insufficiency after an average of 13.6 years of chronic lithium treatment. Despite stopping lithium, 8 patients out of the 19 available for follow-up (42%) developed ESRD.⁶ This study also found that serum creatinine levels >2.5 mg/dL are a predictor of progression to ESRD.⁶

Discontinuing lithium is associated with high rates of mood recurrence (60% to 70%), especially for patients who had been stable on lithium for years.^7,8 If lithium is tapered slowly, the risk of mood recurrence may drop to approximately 42% over the subsequent 18 months, but this is nearly 3-fold greater than the risk of mood recurrence in patients with good response to valproate who are switched to another mood stabilizer (16.7%, c² = 4.3, P = .048),⁹ which suggests that stopping lithium is particularly problematic. Considering the lifetime consequences of bipolar illness, for most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to continue lithium.^10,11

The reasons for conflicting evidence

Many studies indicate that there is either no statistically significant association or a very low association between lithium and developing ESRD,^12-16 while others suggest that long-term lithium treatment increases the risk of chronic nephropathy to a clinically relevant degree (note that these arguments are not mutually exclusive).^6,17-22 Much of this confusion has to do with not making a distinction between renal tubular dysfunction, which occurs early and in approximately one-half of patients treated with lithium,²³ and glomerular dysfunction, which occurs late and is associated with reductions in glomerular filtration and ESRD.²⁴ Adding to the confusion is that even without lithium, the rate of renal disease in patients with mood disorders is 2- to 3-fold higher than that of the general population.²⁵ Lithium treatment is associated with a rate that is higher still,^25-27 but this effect is erroneously exaggerated in studies that examined patients treated with lithium without comparison to a mood-disorder control group.

Renal tubular dysfunction presents as diabetes insipidus with polyuria and polydipsia, which is related to a reduced ability to concentrate the urine.²⁸ Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as a consequence of lithium treatment occurs in 15% of patients²³ and represents approximately 0.22% of patients on dialysis.¹⁸ Lithium-related reduction in GFR is a slowly progressive process that typically requires >20 years of lithium use to result in ESRD.¹⁸ While some decline in GFR may be seen within 1 year after starting lithium, the average age of patients who develop ESRD is 65 years.⁶ Interestingly, short-term animal studies have suggested that lithium may have antiproteinuric, protective, and pro-reparative effects in acute kidney injury.²⁹

Anatomical anomalies in lithium-related glomerular dysfunction

In a study conducted before improved imaging technology was developed, Markowitz et al⁶ used renal biopsy to evaluate lithium-related nephropathy in 24 patients.⁶ Findings revealed chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis in all patients, along with a wide range of abnormalities, including tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis interspersed with microcyst formation arising from distal tubules or collecting ducts.⁶ Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) was found in 50% of patients. This might have been a result of nephron loss and compensatory hypertrophy of surviving nephrons, which suggests that FSGS is possibly a post-adaptive effect (rather than a direct damaging effect) of lithium on the glomerulus. The most noticeable finding was the appearance of microcysts in 62.5% of patients.⁶ It is important to note that these biopsy techniques sampled a relatively small fraction of the kidney volume, and that microcysts might have been more prevalent.

Recently, noninvasive imaging techniques have been used to detect microcysts in patients developing lithium-related nephropathy. While ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) can detect renal microcysts, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specifically the half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo T2-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced (FISP three-dimensional MR angiographic) sequence, is the best noninvasive technology to demonstrate the presence of renal microcysts of a diameter of 1 to 2 mm.³⁰ Ultrasound is sometimes difficult to utilize because while classic cysts appear as anechoic, lithium-induced microcysts may have the appearance of small echogenic foci.^31,32 When evaluated by CT, renal microcysts may appear as hypodense lesions.

Continue to: Recent small studies...

Recent small studies have shown that MRI can detect renal microcysts in approximately 100% of patients who are receiving chronic lithium treatment and have renal insufficiency. One MRI study found renal microcysts in all 16 patients.³³ In another MRI study of 4 patients, all were positive for renal microcysts.³⁴ The relationship between MRI findings and renal function impairment in patients receiving long-term lithium therapy is still not clear; however, 1 study that examined 35 patients who received lithium reported that the number of cysts is generally related to the duration of lithium therapy.³⁵ Thus, microcysts seem to present long before the elevation in creatinine, and nearly always present in patients with some glomerular dysfunction.

Cystic renal lesions have a wide variety of differential diagnoses, including simple renal cysts; glomerulocystic kidney disease; medullary cystic kidney disease and acquired cystic kidney disease; and multicystic dysplastic kidney and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.³⁶ In patients who have a long history of lithium use, lithium-related nephrotoxicity should be added to the differential diagnosis. The ubiquitous presence of renal microcysts and their relationship to duration of lithium exposure and renal function suggest that they may be intimately related to lithium-related ESRD.³⁷

This association appears to be sufficiently reliable and clinicians can use T2-weighted MRI to determine if renal dysfunction is related to lithium. Lithium-related renal microcysts are visualized as multiple bilateral hyperintense foci with a diameter of 1 to 3 mm that involve both the cortex and medulla, tend to be symmetrically distributed throughout the kidney, and are associated with normal-sized kidneys.^33,36 Large cysts are unlikely to be related to lithium; only microcysts are associated with lithium treatment. For examples of how these cysts appear on MRI, see Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. The exact mechanism of lithium-related nephrotoxicity is unclear, but may be related to the mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway or GSK-3beta (glycogen synthase kinase-3beta) (Box^6,37-44).

Box 1

Take-home points

In patients receiving chronic lithium treatment, it can take 20 years to produce a significant reduction in GFR. Switching patients who respond to lithium to other mood-stabilizing agents is associated with a significantly increased risk for mood recurrence and adverse consequences from the alternate medication. Because ESRD may occur more frequently in patients with mood disorders than in the general population, renal disease may be misattributed to lithium use. In approximately one-half of patients, renal disease will continue to progress after discontinuing lithium, which essentially eliminates the benefit of switching medications. This means that the decision to switch a patient who has responded well to lithium treatment for a decade or more to an alternate agent to avoid progression to ESRD may be associated with a very high potential cost but limited benefit.

One solution might be to more accurately identify patients with lithium-related glomerular disease, so that the potential benefit of switching may outweigh potential harm. The presence of renal microcysts on MRI of the kidney may be used to provide some of that reassurance. On renal biopsy, >60% of patients will have documented microcysts, and on MRI, it may approach 100%. The presence of microcysts provides potential evidence that reduced glomerular function is related to lithium. However, the absence of renal microcysts may not be as instructive—a negative MRI of the kidneys may not be sufficient evidence to rule out lithium as the culprit.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Lithium is an effective treatment for bipolar disorder, but its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects make some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it. Discontinuing lithium or switching to another medication also carries risks. For most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to obtain a renal MRI and to cautiously continue lithium if the patient does not have microcysts.

Related Resources

• Hayes JF, Osborn DPJ, Francis E, et al. Prediction of individuals at high risk of chronic kidney disease during treatment with lithium for bipolar disorder. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01964-z
• Pelekanos M, Foo K. A resident’s guide to lithium. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):e3-e7. doi:10.12788/cp.0113

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Sirolimus • Rapamune
Valproate • Depacon

Lithium is one of the most widely used mood stabilizers and is considered a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder because of its proven antimanic and prophylactic effects.¹ This medication also can reduce the risk of suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.² However, it has a narrow therapeutic index. While lithium has many reversible adverse effects—such as tremors, gastrointestinal disturbance, and thyroid dysfunction—its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects makes some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it.^3,4 In this article, we describe the relationship between lithium and nephrotoxicity, explain the apparent contradiction in published research regarding this topic, and offer suggestions for how to determine whether you should continue treatment with lithium for a patient who develops renal changes.

A lithium dilemma

Many psychiatrists have faced the dilemma of whether to discontinue lithium upon the appearance of glomerular renal changes and risk exposing patients to relapse or suicide, or to continue prescribing lithium and risk development of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Discontinuing lithium is not associated with the reversal of renal changes and kidney recovery,⁵ and exposes patients to psychiatric risks, such as mood recurrence and increased risk of suicide.⁶ Switching from lithium to another mood stabilizer is associated with a host of adverse effects, including diabetes mellitus and weight gain, and mood stabilizer use is not associated with reduced renal risk in patients with bipolar disorder.⁵ For example, Markowitz et al⁶ evaluated 24 patients with renal insufficiency after an average of 13.6 years of chronic lithium treatment. Despite stopping lithium, 8 patients out of the 19 available for follow-up (42%) developed ESRD.⁶ This study also found that serum creatinine levels >2.5 mg/dL are a predictor of progression to ESRD.⁶

Discontinuing lithium is associated with high rates of mood recurrence (60% to 70%), especially for patients who had been stable on lithium for years.^7,8 If lithium is tapered slowly, the risk of mood recurrence may drop to approximately 42% over the subsequent 18 months, but this is nearly 3-fold greater than the risk of mood recurrence in patients with good response to valproate who are switched to another mood stabilizer (16.7%, c² = 4.3, P = .048),⁹ which suggests that stopping lithium is particularly problematic. Considering the lifetime consequences of bipolar illness, for most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to continue lithium.^10,11

The reasons for conflicting evidence

Many studies indicate that there is either no statistically significant association or a very low association between lithium and developing ESRD,^12-16 while others suggest that long-term lithium treatment increases the risk of chronic nephropathy to a clinically relevant degree (note that these arguments are not mutually exclusive).^6,17-22 Much of this confusion has to do with not making a distinction between renal tubular dysfunction, which occurs early and in approximately one-half of patients treated with lithium,²³ and glomerular dysfunction, which occurs late and is associated with reductions in glomerular filtration and ESRD.²⁴ Adding to the confusion is that even without lithium, the rate of renal disease in patients with mood disorders is 2- to 3-fold higher than that of the general population.²⁵ Lithium treatment is associated with a rate that is higher still,^25-27 but this effect is erroneously exaggerated in studies that examined patients treated with lithium without comparison to a mood-disorder control group.

Renal tubular dysfunction presents as diabetes insipidus with polyuria and polydipsia, which is related to a reduced ability to concentrate the urine.²⁸ Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as a consequence of lithium treatment occurs in 15% of patients²³ and represents approximately 0.22% of patients on dialysis.¹⁸ Lithium-related reduction in GFR is a slowly progressive process that typically requires >20 years of lithium use to result in ESRD.¹⁸ While some decline in GFR may be seen within 1 year after starting lithium, the average age of patients who develop ESRD is 65 years.⁶ Interestingly, short-term animal studies have suggested that lithium may have antiproteinuric, protective, and pro-reparative effects in acute kidney injury.²⁹

Anatomical anomalies in lithium-related glomerular dysfunction

In a study conducted before improved imaging technology was developed, Markowitz et al⁶ used renal biopsy to evaluate lithium-related nephropathy in 24 patients.⁶ Findings revealed chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis in all patients, along with a wide range of abnormalities, including tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis interspersed with microcyst formation arising from distal tubules or collecting ducts.⁶ Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) was found in 50% of patients. This might have been a result of nephron loss and compensatory hypertrophy of surviving nephrons, which suggests that FSGS is possibly a post-adaptive effect (rather than a direct damaging effect) of lithium on the glomerulus. The most noticeable finding was the appearance of microcysts in 62.5% of patients.⁶ It is important to note that these biopsy techniques sampled a relatively small fraction of the kidney volume, and that microcysts might have been more prevalent.

Recently, noninvasive imaging techniques have been used to detect microcysts in patients developing lithium-related nephropathy. While ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) can detect renal microcysts, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specifically the half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo T2-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced (FISP three-dimensional MR angiographic) sequence, is the best noninvasive technology to demonstrate the presence of renal microcysts of a diameter of 1 to 2 mm.³⁰ Ultrasound is sometimes difficult to utilize because while classic cysts appear as anechoic, lithium-induced microcysts may have the appearance of small echogenic foci.^31,32 When evaluated by CT, renal microcysts may appear as hypodense lesions.

Continue to: Recent small studies...

Recent small studies have shown that MRI can detect renal microcysts in approximately 100% of patients who are receiving chronic lithium treatment and have renal insufficiency. One MRI study found renal microcysts in all 16 patients.³³ In another MRI study of 4 patients, all were positive for renal microcysts.³⁴ The relationship between MRI findings and renal function impairment in patients receiving long-term lithium therapy is still not clear; however, 1 study that examined 35 patients who received lithium reported that the number of cysts is generally related to the duration of lithium therapy.³⁵ Thus, microcysts seem to present long before the elevation in creatinine, and nearly always present in patients with some glomerular dysfunction.

Cystic renal lesions have a wide variety of differential diagnoses, including simple renal cysts; glomerulocystic kidney disease; medullary cystic kidney disease and acquired cystic kidney disease; and multicystic dysplastic kidney and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.³⁶ In patients who have a long history of lithium use, lithium-related nephrotoxicity should be added to the differential diagnosis. The ubiquitous presence of renal microcysts and their relationship to duration of lithium exposure and renal function suggest that they may be intimately related to lithium-related ESRD.³⁷

This association appears to be sufficiently reliable and clinicians can use T2-weighted MRI to determine if renal dysfunction is related to lithium. Lithium-related renal microcysts are visualized as multiple bilateral hyperintense foci with a diameter of 1 to 3 mm that involve both the cortex and medulla, tend to be symmetrically distributed throughout the kidney, and are associated with normal-sized kidneys.^33,36 Large cysts are unlikely to be related to lithium; only microcysts are associated with lithium treatment. For examples of how these cysts appear on MRI, see Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. The exact mechanism of lithium-related nephrotoxicity is unclear, but may be related to the mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway or GSK-3beta (glycogen synthase kinase-3beta) (Box^6,37-44).

Box 1

Take-home points

In patients receiving chronic lithium treatment, it can take 20 years to produce a significant reduction in GFR. Switching patients who respond to lithium to other mood-stabilizing agents is associated with a significantly increased risk for mood recurrence and adverse consequences from the alternate medication. Because ESRD may occur more frequently in patients with mood disorders than in the general population, renal disease may be misattributed to lithium use. In approximately one-half of patients, renal disease will continue to progress after discontinuing lithium, which essentially eliminates the benefit of switching medications. This means that the decision to switch a patient who has responded well to lithium treatment for a decade or more to an alternate agent to avoid progression to ESRD may be associated with a very high potential cost but limited benefit.

One solution might be to more accurately identify patients with lithium-related glomerular disease, so that the potential benefit of switching may outweigh potential harm. The presence of renal microcysts on MRI of the kidney may be used to provide some of that reassurance. On renal biopsy, >60% of patients will have documented microcysts, and on MRI, it may approach 100%. The presence of microcysts provides potential evidence that reduced glomerular function is related to lithium. However, the absence of renal microcysts may not be as instructive—a negative MRI of the kidneys may not be sufficient evidence to rule out lithium as the culprit.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Lithium is an effective treatment for bipolar disorder, but its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects make some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it. Discontinuing lithium or switching to another medication also carries risks. For most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to obtain a renal MRI and to cautiously continue lithium if the patient does not have microcysts.

Related Resources

• Hayes JF, Osborn DPJ, Francis E, et al. Prediction of individuals at high risk of chronic kidney disease during treatment with lithium for bipolar disorder. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01964-z
• Pelekanos M, Foo K. A resident’s guide to lithium. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):e3-e7. doi:10.12788/cp.0113

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Sirolimus • Rapamune
Valproate • Depacon

Lithium is one of the most widely used mood stabilizers and is considered a first-line treatment for bipolar disorder because of its proven antimanic and prophylactic effects.¹ This medication also can reduce the risk of suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.² However, it has a narrow therapeutic index. While lithium has many reversible adverse effects—such as tremors, gastrointestinal disturbance, and thyroid dysfunction—its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects makes some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it.^3,4 In this article, we describe the relationship between lithium and nephrotoxicity, explain the apparent contradiction in published research regarding this topic, and offer suggestions for how to determine whether you should continue treatment with lithium for a patient who develops renal changes.

A lithium dilemma

Many psychiatrists have faced the dilemma of whether to discontinue lithium upon the appearance of glomerular renal changes and risk exposing patients to relapse or suicide, or to continue prescribing lithium and risk development of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Discontinuing lithium is not associated with the reversal of renal changes and kidney recovery,⁵ and exposes patients to psychiatric risks, such as mood recurrence and increased risk of suicide.⁶ Switching from lithium to another mood stabilizer is associated with a host of adverse effects, including diabetes mellitus and weight gain, and mood stabilizer use is not associated with reduced renal risk in patients with bipolar disorder.⁵ For example, Markowitz et al⁶ evaluated 24 patients with renal insufficiency after an average of 13.6 years of chronic lithium treatment. Despite stopping lithium, 8 patients out of the 19 available for follow-up (42%) developed ESRD.⁶ This study also found that serum creatinine levels >2.5 mg/dL are a predictor of progression to ESRD.⁶

Discontinuing lithium is associated with high rates of mood recurrence (60% to 70%), especially for patients who had been stable on lithium for years.^7,8 If lithium is tapered slowly, the risk of mood recurrence may drop to approximately 42% over the subsequent 18 months, but this is nearly 3-fold greater than the risk of mood recurrence in patients with good response to valproate who are switched to another mood stabilizer (16.7%, c² = 4.3, P = .048),⁹ which suggests that stopping lithium is particularly problematic. Considering the lifetime consequences of bipolar illness, for most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to continue lithium.^10,11

The reasons for conflicting evidence

Many studies indicate that there is either no statistically significant association or a very low association between lithium and developing ESRD,^12-16 while others suggest that long-term lithium treatment increases the risk of chronic nephropathy to a clinically relevant degree (note that these arguments are not mutually exclusive).^6,17-22 Much of this confusion has to do with not making a distinction between renal tubular dysfunction, which occurs early and in approximately one-half of patients treated with lithium,²³ and glomerular dysfunction, which occurs late and is associated with reductions in glomerular filtration and ESRD.²⁴ Adding to the confusion is that even without lithium, the rate of renal disease in patients with mood disorders is 2- to 3-fold higher than that of the general population.²⁵ Lithium treatment is associated with a rate that is higher still,^25-27 but this effect is erroneously exaggerated in studies that examined patients treated with lithium without comparison to a mood-disorder control group.

Renal tubular dysfunction presents as diabetes insipidus with polyuria and polydipsia, which is related to a reduced ability to concentrate the urine.²⁸ Reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as a consequence of lithium treatment occurs in 15% of patients²³ and represents approximately 0.22% of patients on dialysis.¹⁸ Lithium-related reduction in GFR is a slowly progressive process that typically requires >20 years of lithium use to result in ESRD.¹⁸ While some decline in GFR may be seen within 1 year after starting lithium, the average age of patients who develop ESRD is 65 years.⁶ Interestingly, short-term animal studies have suggested that lithium may have antiproteinuric, protective, and pro-reparative effects in acute kidney injury.²⁹

Anatomical anomalies in lithium-related glomerular dysfunction

In a study conducted before improved imaging technology was developed, Markowitz et al⁶ used renal biopsy to evaluate lithium-related nephropathy in 24 patients.⁶ Findings revealed chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis in all patients, along with a wide range of abnormalities, including tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis interspersed with microcyst formation arising from distal tubules or collecting ducts.⁶ Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) was found in 50% of patients. This might have been a result of nephron loss and compensatory hypertrophy of surviving nephrons, which suggests that FSGS is possibly a post-adaptive effect (rather than a direct damaging effect) of lithium on the glomerulus. The most noticeable finding was the appearance of microcysts in 62.5% of patients.⁶ It is important to note that these biopsy techniques sampled a relatively small fraction of the kidney volume, and that microcysts might have been more prevalent.

Recently, noninvasive imaging techniques have been used to detect microcysts in patients developing lithium-related nephropathy. While ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) can detect renal microcysts, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specifically the half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo T2-weighted and gadolinium-enhanced (FISP three-dimensional MR angiographic) sequence, is the best noninvasive technology to demonstrate the presence of renal microcysts of a diameter of 1 to 2 mm.³⁰ Ultrasound is sometimes difficult to utilize because while classic cysts appear as anechoic, lithium-induced microcysts may have the appearance of small echogenic foci.^31,32 When evaluated by CT, renal microcysts may appear as hypodense lesions.

Continue to: Recent small studies...

Recent small studies have shown that MRI can detect renal microcysts in approximately 100% of patients who are receiving chronic lithium treatment and have renal insufficiency. One MRI study found renal microcysts in all 16 patients.³³ In another MRI study of 4 patients, all were positive for renal microcysts.³⁴ The relationship between MRI findings and renal function impairment in patients receiving long-term lithium therapy is still not clear; however, 1 study that examined 35 patients who received lithium reported that the number of cysts is generally related to the duration of lithium therapy.³⁵ Thus, microcysts seem to present long before the elevation in creatinine, and nearly always present in patients with some glomerular dysfunction.

Cystic renal lesions have a wide variety of differential diagnoses, including simple renal cysts; glomerulocystic kidney disease; medullary cystic kidney disease and acquired cystic kidney disease; and multicystic dysplastic kidney and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.³⁶ In patients who have a long history of lithium use, lithium-related nephrotoxicity should be added to the differential diagnosis. The ubiquitous presence of renal microcysts and their relationship to duration of lithium exposure and renal function suggest that they may be intimately related to lithium-related ESRD.³⁷

This association appears to be sufficiently reliable and clinicians can use T2-weighted MRI to determine if renal dysfunction is related to lithium. Lithium-related renal microcysts are visualized as multiple bilateral hyperintense foci with a diameter of 1 to 3 mm that involve both the cortex and medulla, tend to be symmetrically distributed throughout the kidney, and are associated with normal-sized kidneys.^33,36 Large cysts are unlikely to be related to lithium; only microcysts are associated with lithium treatment. For examples of how these cysts appear on MRI, see Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. The exact mechanism of lithium-related nephrotoxicity is unclear, but may be related to the mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) pathway or GSK-3beta (glycogen synthase kinase-3beta) (Box^6,37-44).

Box 1

Take-home points

In patients receiving chronic lithium treatment, it can take 20 years to produce a significant reduction in GFR. Switching patients who respond to lithium to other mood-stabilizing agents is associated with a significantly increased risk for mood recurrence and adverse consequences from the alternate medication. Because ESRD may occur more frequently in patients with mood disorders than in the general population, renal disease may be misattributed to lithium use. In approximately one-half of patients, renal disease will continue to progress after discontinuing lithium, which essentially eliminates the benefit of switching medications. This means that the decision to switch a patient who has responded well to lithium treatment for a decade or more to an alternate agent to avoid progression to ESRD may be associated with a very high potential cost but limited benefit.

One solution might be to more accurately identify patients with lithium-related glomerular disease, so that the potential benefit of switching may outweigh potential harm. The presence of renal microcysts on MRI of the kidney may be used to provide some of that reassurance. On renal biopsy, >60% of patients will have documented microcysts, and on MRI, it may approach 100%. The presence of microcysts provides potential evidence that reduced glomerular function is related to lithium. However, the absence of renal microcysts may not be as instructive—a negative MRI of the kidneys may not be sufficient evidence to rule out lithium as the culprit.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Lithium is an effective treatment for bipolar disorder, but its perceived irreversible nephrotoxic effects make some clinicians hesitant to prescribe it. Discontinuing lithium or switching to another medication also carries risks. For most patients who have been receiving lithium for a long time, the recommendation is to obtain a renal MRI and to cautiously continue lithium if the patient does not have microcysts.

Related Resources

• Hayes JF, Osborn DPJ, Francis E, et al. Prediction of individuals at high risk of chronic kidney disease during treatment with lithium for bipolar disorder. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12916-021-01964-z
• Pelekanos M, Foo K. A resident’s guide to lithium. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):e3-e7. doi:10.12788/cp.0113

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Sirolimus • Rapamune
Valproate • Depacon

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Psychiatric Association has joined with the American Medical Association and other medical societies to oppose United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) request that a court throw out a ruling that found the insurer unfairly denied tens of thousands of claims for mental health and substance use disorder services.

Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in litigation since 2014, is being closely watched by clinicians, patients, providers, and attorneys.

Reena Kapoor, MD, chair of the APA’s Committee on Judicial Action, said in an interview that the APA is hopeful that “whatever the court says about UBH should be applicable to all insurance companies that are providing employer-sponsored health benefits.”

In a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief, the APA, AMA, the California Medical Association, Southern California Psychiatric Society, Northern California Psychiatric Society, Orange County Psychiatric Society, Central California Psychiatric Society, and San Diego Psychiatric Society argue that “despite the availability of professionally developed, evidence-based guidelines embodying generally accepted standards of care for mental health and substance use disorders, managed care organizations commonly base coverage decisions on internally developed ‘level of care guidelines’ that are inappropriately restrictive.”

The guidelines “may lead to denial of coverage for treatment that is recommended by a patient’s physician and even cut off coverage when treatment is already being delivered,” said the groups.

The U.S. Department of Labor also filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs who are suing UBH. Those individuals suffered injury when they were denied coverage, said the federal agency, which regulates employer-sponsored insurance plans.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also made an amicus filing supporting the plaintiffs.

“When insurers limit access to this critical care, they leave Californians who need it feeling as if they have no other option than to try to cope alone,” said Mr. Bonta in a statement.
 

‘Discrimination must end’

Mr. Bonta said he agreed with a 2019 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that UBH had violated its fiduciary duties by wrongfully using its internally developed coverage determination guidelines and level of care guidelines to deny care.

The court also found that UBH’s medically necessary criteria meant that only “acute” episodes would be covered. Instead, said the court last November, chronic and comorbid conditions should always be treated, according to Maureen Gammon and Kathleen Rosenow of Willis Towers Watson, a risk advisor.

In November, the same Northern California District Court ruled on the remedies it would require of United, including that the insurer reprocess more than 67,000 claims. UBH was also barred indefinitely from using any of its guidelines to make coverage determinations. Instead, it was ordered to make determinations “consistent with generally accepted standards of care,” and consistent with state laws.

The District Court denied a request by UBH to put a hold on the claims reprocessing until it appealed the overall case. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February granted that request.

Then, in March, United appealed the District Court’s overall ruling, claiming that the plaintiffs had not proven harm. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a brief in support of United, agreeing with its arguments.

However, the APA and other clinician groups said there is no question of harm.

“Failure to provide appropriate levels of care for treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders leads to relapse, overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, and death,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, in a statement. 

APA President Vivian Pender, MD, said guidelines that “are overly focused on stabilizing acute symptoms of mental health and substance use disorders” are not treating the underlying disease. “When the injury is physical, insurers treat the underlying disease and not just the symptoms. Discrimination against patients with mental illness must end,” she said.

No court has ever recognized the type of claims reprocessing ordered by the District Court judge, said attorneys Nathaniel Cohen and Joseph Laska of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, in an analysis of the case.

“If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved,” Mr. Cohen and Mr. Laska write. “Practitioners, health plans, and health insurers would be wise to track UBH’s long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.

The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.

In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.

The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.

Overall, the total CP group was 1.4 times more likely to receive any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.

When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).

Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”

The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.

The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.

Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.

The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.

In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.

The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.

Overall, the total CP group was 1.4 times more likely to receive any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.

When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).

Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”

The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.

The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.

Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.

The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.

In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.

The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.

Overall, the total CP group was 1.4 times more likely to receive any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.

When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).

Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.

However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”

The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.

The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.

An investigational, orally dissolving film formulation of dexmedetomidine (BXCL501, BioXcel Therapeutics) may offer rapid relief from acute agitation related to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD), results of two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show.
 

For both disorders, BXCL501 showed “superiority over placebo” by meeting the primary endpoint of reduction of agitation as measured by the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), study investigator Leslie Citrome, MD, MPH, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

Noninvasive option

Acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or BD is often encountered in emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient units. When nondrug tactics fail to calm the patient, drug options include injectable antipsychotics or benzodiazepines. BXCL501 is a thin, orally dissolving film for sublingual or buccal use.

“Dexmedetomidine is a highly-selective alpha-2a receptor agonist and we haven’t really had one of those before in psychiatry for this purpose. And we haven’t had much in the way of orally dissolving thin films that are absorbed in the oral mucosa so this represents an opportunity to provide a potential intervention that does not require an injection and yet could possibly be of use in people who are agitated,” Dr. Citrome said.

The study, known as SERENITY I, included 380 adults (mean age 45.6 years, 63% male) with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder, and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥ 14 on the PANSS-Excited Component (PEC) scale at baseline and a score ≥ 4 on at least one of the five PEC items).

Patients were randomly allocated to a single oral dose of BXCL501: 120 mcg, 180 mcg, or placebo. A total of 372 patients (97.9%) completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 17.6 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -8.5 and -10.3 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.8 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

PEC response rates (≥ 40% reduction from baseline) were 80.6% and 89.6% with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg versus 47.6% with placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Compared with placebo, significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impression–Improvement scale (CGI-I) was observed with both BXCL501 doses at 1 and 2 hours after dosing and in the Agitation and Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) at 2 hours post dosing.

The incidence of adverse events (AE) was 39.5%, 37.3%, and 15.1% with BXCL501 120 mg, 180 mg, and placebo groups.

All AEs were mild or moderate. The most common AEs with BXCL501 were somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, hypoesthesia, and paresthesia. No drug-related severe or serious AEs occurred.
 

Nipping it in the bud

SERENITY II had a similar design. This study included 380 adults (mean age 48, 55% female) with bipolar I or II disorder and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥14 on the PEC scale at baseline and a score ≥4 on at least one PEC item). A total of 362 (95.3%) of patients completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 18 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -9.0 and -10.4 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.9 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Bipolar patients also saw significant improvement on the secondary outcomes of CGI-I and ACES, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in patients with schizophrenia.

BXCL501 demonstrated “rapid, robust and clinically meaningful efficacy” in both patient populations and represents a “novel, noninvasive and well tolerated treatment of agitation,” the investigators concluded in their APA abstracts.

“Patients who are agitated are in psychic pain and they want relief from this psychic pain. We’re also worried that they might get worse and that agitation escalates to aggression potentially requiring restraints. We want to avoid that,” Dr. Citrome said.

“By nipping it in the bud with a pharmacological intervention, we can ease their psychic pain and we can manage a potentially dangerous situation. Offering an oral medicine that would work quickly would be ideal in my mind and patients might potentially be more accepting of that than an injection,” Dr. Citrome said.

Based on the SERENITY I and II data, BioXcel Therapeutics has submitted a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration.
 

Negotiation first, medication second 

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York (N.Y.) University, cautioned that, “when we talk about treating an agitated patient, medication is only part of the picture.

“There is a negotiating process with the patient. Number one, you offer them an environment that is conducive to making them feel calm, safe, and secure and that they are being listened to. Providing all of those things sometimes can be very helpful,” said Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City.

“If someone starts throwing chairs at you or assaulting you, that is not really the time to negotiate a medicine; you basically have to restrain the patient, and many times give them intramuscular medicine,” Dr. Ahmad said.

He also noted that patients in the SERENITY trials had moderate to severe acute agitation.

“These are people you can potentially negotiate with. But again, when a patient crosses a certain line, you have to immediately do something and that could be intramuscular injection or something oral, which they may spit right in your face, which has happened numerous times,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“I don’t think intramuscular options will ever go away but an oral agent could be a useful tool as well,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York City.

He cautioned that clinicians are not going to be using this medicine in their offices. “If a patient walks in and is floridly psychotic, you will need to call 911. We’re really talking about its use either in the ED or acute inpatient setting,” Dr. Ahmad said.

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

An investigational, orally dissolving film formulation of dexmedetomidine (BXCL501, BioXcel Therapeutics) may offer rapid relief from acute agitation related to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD), results of two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show.
 

For both disorders, BXCL501 showed “superiority over placebo” by meeting the primary endpoint of reduction of agitation as measured by the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), study investigator Leslie Citrome, MD, MPH, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

Noninvasive option

Acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or BD is often encountered in emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient units. When nondrug tactics fail to calm the patient, drug options include injectable antipsychotics or benzodiazepines. BXCL501 is a thin, orally dissolving film for sublingual or buccal use.

“Dexmedetomidine is a highly-selective alpha-2a receptor agonist and we haven’t really had one of those before in psychiatry for this purpose. And we haven’t had much in the way of orally dissolving thin films that are absorbed in the oral mucosa so this represents an opportunity to provide a potential intervention that does not require an injection and yet could possibly be of use in people who are agitated,” Dr. Citrome said.

The study, known as SERENITY I, included 380 adults (mean age 45.6 years, 63% male) with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder, and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥ 14 on the PANSS-Excited Component (PEC) scale at baseline and a score ≥ 4 on at least one of the five PEC items).

Patients were randomly allocated to a single oral dose of BXCL501: 120 mcg, 180 mcg, or placebo. A total of 372 patients (97.9%) completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 17.6 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -8.5 and -10.3 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.8 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

PEC response rates (≥ 40% reduction from baseline) were 80.6% and 89.6% with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg versus 47.6% with placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Compared with placebo, significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impression–Improvement scale (CGI-I) was observed with both BXCL501 doses at 1 and 2 hours after dosing and in the Agitation and Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) at 2 hours post dosing.

The incidence of adverse events (AE) was 39.5%, 37.3%, and 15.1% with BXCL501 120 mg, 180 mg, and placebo groups.

All AEs were mild or moderate. The most common AEs with BXCL501 were somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, hypoesthesia, and paresthesia. No drug-related severe or serious AEs occurred.
 

Nipping it in the bud

SERENITY II had a similar design. This study included 380 adults (mean age 48, 55% female) with bipolar I or II disorder and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥14 on the PEC scale at baseline and a score ≥4 on at least one PEC item). A total of 362 (95.3%) of patients completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 18 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -9.0 and -10.4 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.9 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Bipolar patients also saw significant improvement on the secondary outcomes of CGI-I and ACES, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in patients with schizophrenia.

BXCL501 demonstrated “rapid, robust and clinically meaningful efficacy” in both patient populations and represents a “novel, noninvasive and well tolerated treatment of agitation,” the investigators concluded in their APA abstracts.

“Patients who are agitated are in psychic pain and they want relief from this psychic pain. We’re also worried that they might get worse and that agitation escalates to aggression potentially requiring restraints. We want to avoid that,” Dr. Citrome said.

“By nipping it in the bud with a pharmacological intervention, we can ease their psychic pain and we can manage a potentially dangerous situation. Offering an oral medicine that would work quickly would be ideal in my mind and patients might potentially be more accepting of that than an injection,” Dr. Citrome said.

Based on the SERENITY I and II data, BioXcel Therapeutics has submitted a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration.
 

Negotiation first, medication second 

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York (N.Y.) University, cautioned that, “when we talk about treating an agitated patient, medication is only part of the picture.

“There is a negotiating process with the patient. Number one, you offer them an environment that is conducive to making them feel calm, safe, and secure and that they are being listened to. Providing all of those things sometimes can be very helpful,” said Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City.

“If someone starts throwing chairs at you or assaulting you, that is not really the time to negotiate a medicine; you basically have to restrain the patient, and many times give them intramuscular medicine,” Dr. Ahmad said.

He also noted that patients in the SERENITY trials had moderate to severe acute agitation.

“These are people you can potentially negotiate with. But again, when a patient crosses a certain line, you have to immediately do something and that could be intramuscular injection or something oral, which they may spit right in your face, which has happened numerous times,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“I don’t think intramuscular options will ever go away but an oral agent could be a useful tool as well,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York City.

He cautioned that clinicians are not going to be using this medicine in their offices. “If a patient walks in and is floridly psychotic, you will need to call 911. We’re really talking about its use either in the ED or acute inpatient setting,” Dr. Ahmad said.

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

An investigational, orally dissolving film formulation of dexmedetomidine (BXCL501, BioXcel Therapeutics) may offer rapid relief from acute agitation related to schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD), results of two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials show.
 

For both disorders, BXCL501 showed “superiority over placebo” by meeting the primary endpoint of reduction of agitation as measured by the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), study investigator Leslie Citrome, MD, MPH, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, which was held as a virtual live event.
 

Noninvasive option

Acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or BD is often encountered in emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient units. When nondrug tactics fail to calm the patient, drug options include injectable antipsychotics or benzodiazepines. BXCL501 is a thin, orally dissolving film for sublingual or buccal use.

“Dexmedetomidine is a highly-selective alpha-2a receptor agonist and we haven’t really had one of those before in psychiatry for this purpose. And we haven’t had much in the way of orally dissolving thin films that are absorbed in the oral mucosa so this represents an opportunity to provide a potential intervention that does not require an injection and yet could possibly be of use in people who are agitated,” Dr. Citrome said.

The study, known as SERENITY I, included 380 adults (mean age 45.6 years, 63% male) with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder, and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥ 14 on the PANSS-Excited Component (PEC) scale at baseline and a score ≥ 4 on at least one of the five PEC items).

Patients were randomly allocated to a single oral dose of BXCL501: 120 mcg, 180 mcg, or placebo. A total of 372 patients (97.9%) completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 17.6 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -8.5 and -10.3 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.8 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

PEC response rates (≥ 40% reduction from baseline) were 80.6% and 89.6% with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg versus 47.6% with placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Compared with placebo, significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impression–Improvement scale (CGI-I) was observed with both BXCL501 doses at 1 and 2 hours after dosing and in the Agitation and Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES) at 2 hours post dosing.

The incidence of adverse events (AE) was 39.5%, 37.3%, and 15.1% with BXCL501 120 mg, 180 mg, and placebo groups.

All AEs were mild or moderate. The most common AEs with BXCL501 were somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, hypoesthesia, and paresthesia. No drug-related severe or serious AEs occurred.
 

Nipping it in the bud

SERENITY II had a similar design. This study included 380 adults (mean age 48, 55% female) with bipolar I or II disorder and acute agitation in the ED (total score ≥14 on the PEC scale at baseline and a score ≥4 on at least one PEC item). A total of 362 (95.3%) of patients completed the study.

Mean PEC total score was 18 at baseline. The mean change from baseline in the PEC total score at 2 hours (primary endpoint) was -9.0 and -10.4 with BXCL501 120 mcg and 180 mcg, respectively, versus -4.9 for placebo (P < .0001 vs. placebo).

Bipolar patients also saw significant improvement on the secondary outcomes of CGI-I and ACES, with an adverse event profile similar to that seen in patients with schizophrenia.

BXCL501 demonstrated “rapid, robust and clinically meaningful efficacy” in both patient populations and represents a “novel, noninvasive and well tolerated treatment of agitation,” the investigators concluded in their APA abstracts.

“Patients who are agitated are in psychic pain and they want relief from this psychic pain. We’re also worried that they might get worse and that agitation escalates to aggression potentially requiring restraints. We want to avoid that,” Dr. Citrome said.

“By nipping it in the bud with a pharmacological intervention, we can ease their psychic pain and we can manage a potentially dangerous situation. Offering an oral medicine that would work quickly would be ideal in my mind and patients might potentially be more accepting of that than an injection,” Dr. Citrome said.

Based on the SERENITY I and II data, BioXcel Therapeutics has submitted a new drug application to the Food and Drug Administration.
 

Negotiation first, medication second 

Reached for comment, Samoon Ahmad, MD, professor, department of psychiatry, New York (N.Y.) University, cautioned that, “when we talk about treating an agitated patient, medication is only part of the picture.

“There is a negotiating process with the patient. Number one, you offer them an environment that is conducive to making them feel calm, safe, and secure and that they are being listened to. Providing all of those things sometimes can be very helpful,” said Dr. Ahmad, who serves as unit chief of inpatient psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City.

“If someone starts throwing chairs at you or assaulting you, that is not really the time to negotiate a medicine; you basically have to restrain the patient, and many times give them intramuscular medicine,” Dr. Ahmad said.

He also noted that patients in the SERENITY trials had moderate to severe acute agitation.

“These are people you can potentially negotiate with. But again, when a patient crosses a certain line, you have to immediately do something and that could be intramuscular injection or something oral, which they may spit right in your face, which has happened numerous times,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“I don’t think intramuscular options will ever go away but an oral agent could be a useful tool as well,” said Dr. Ahmad, founder of the Integrative Center for Wellness in New York City.

He cautioned that clinicians are not going to be using this medicine in their offices. “If a patient walks in and is floridly psychotic, you will need to call 911. We’re really talking about its use either in the ED or acute inpatient setting,” Dr. Ahmad said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Continue to: Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Continue to: Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Continue to: Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Continue to: Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Continue to: Study design

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Continue to: Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Continue to: Conclusion

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

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

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

Study design

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

Outcomes

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

Conclusion

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