Bipolar Disorder

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Mia McDermott is no stranger to isolation. Abandoned as an infant in China, she lived in an orphanage until a family in California adopted her as a toddler. She spent her adolescence in boarding schools and early adult years in and out of psychiatric hospitals, where she underwent treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, and anorexia.

The pandemic left Ms. McDermott feeling especially lonely. She restricted social interactions because her fatty liver disease put her at greater risk of complications should she contract COVID-19. The 26-year-old Santa Cruz, Calif., resident stopped regularly eating and taking her psychiatric medications, and contemplated suicide.

When Ms. McDermott’s thoughts grew increasingly dark in June, she checked into Second Story, a mental health program based in a home not far from her own, where she finds nonclinical support in a peaceful environment from people who have faced similar challenges.

Second Story is what is known as a “peer respite,” a welcoming place where people can stay when they’re experiencing or nearing a mental health crisis. Betting that a low-key wellness approach, coupled with empathy from people who have “been there,” can help people in distress recover, this unorthodox strategy has gained popularity in recent years as the nation grapples with a severe shortage of psychiatric beds that has been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Peer respites allow guests to avoid psychiatric hospitalization and ED visits. They now operate in at least 14 states. California has five, in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County.

“When things are really tough and you need extra support but you don’t need hospitalization, where’s that middle ground?” asked Keris Myrick, founder of Hacienda of Hope, a peer respite in Long Beach, Calif.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

How many providers does it take to depersonalize a patient? Nine? 1. A psychiatrist for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). 2. A psychiatrist for ketamine. 3. A psychiatrist who specializes in substance use disorder medication. 4. A psychiatrist for the rest of the psychotropic medication. 5. An alternative medicine provider who prescribes supplements. 6. A therapist for depression who uses cognitive-behavioral therapy. 7. A therapist for posttraumatic stress disorder who uses eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. 8. An addiction counselor. 9. An equine therapist.

This doesn’t include other providers and professionals who likely contribute to one’s mental well-being, including yoga instructors and personal trainers. In addition, any one of those psychiatrists may have one or more nurse practitioners who routinely step in to attend to appointments.

In our uncertain and lonely times, the value of human contact and interaction has become exponentially more precious. I long to see my patients in my private practice office. I am now much more aware of their grounding effect on my life, and I suspect I had a similar grounding effect on theirs. Few things provide me more comfort than sitting on my lounge chair with a curious gaze waiting for the patient to start the visit. I often wonder what makes a patient choose to go see a private practice physician. Yet a common reason offered is, “Wait! You do everything? Therapy and meds if I need them? You’ll see me every week?”

While I am realistic about the need and use of split-care, I have never been enamored with the concept. I think that few medical students choose psychiatry with the goal of referring all psychotherapeutic needs and intervention to “allied mental health providers” as my prior managed care organization liked to refer to psychologists, social workers, marriage and family therapists, and other counselors. I remember particularly as a chief resident being bombarded by complaints of therapists complaining about psychiatry residents. All of their patients’ symptoms allegedly required medication adjustment and residents were supposedly dismissing them. In return, residents would complain that the therapists did not address the psychological manifestations of the patient’s ailments. Herein lies my problem with split-care, it encourages psychotherapy to be about medication management, and medication management to be about psychotherapy.

However, this is not an article against split-treatment. Psychiatrists, for a variety of reasons, are not suited to perform psychotherapy in most management care models. The main reason being that psychiatrists’ time is too expensive to justify the expense, and psychiatrists are (for the most part), the only ones able to prescribe medications for which the wait-list is already long enough. This article is about the absurd levels at which we have fragmented care of certain patients. Split-treatment is relevant in that its negative side effects, we are almost all familiar with, exemplify the problem of the fragmentation of modern psychiatry. In many ways this fragmentation of care is similar to polypharmacy – the premise for each psychotropic intervention may be sound, but the end result is often incoherent.

My main concern with the fragmentation of modern psychiatry stems from my belief that the most important facet of our work is our relationship with our patients. It is the duty we owe them, the attention we give them, the unique nature of interactions. Who among the nine providers is responsible for writing a discharge summary? Who is responsible for calling an emergency contact in a critical situation? Who communicates with the new provider when someone is taken off an insurance panel? Who makes the patient feel cared for? I am often confronted by this situation when TMS or ketamine providers say, “I just give the procedure/medication that was ordered by the referring psychiatrist.” This response disturbs me in that I could not imagine myself being so hands off in the care of a patient. There is an implication of projected immunity and lack of responsibility that bothers me.

But my concerns are also practical. From my forensic experience, I am well aware that the larger the number of providers treating a patient, the larger the number of inconsistent diagnoses, the more likely medication reconciliations are not kept up to date or incorrect, and the more likely intervention recommendations are contrary to one another. A disengaged ketamine provider may not realize that the patient was more recently enrolled in a substance use disorder program, a potential contraindication for ketamine, if not well-abreast of the patient’s continued evolution. A disengaged therapist may not realize that a patient appears unmotivated because of an increasing dose of medication rather than poor effort. A substance use disorder psychiatric specialist may be at odds with a substance use disorder counselor who worries about the message of treating psychiatric symptoms with chemical substances if they don’t communicate.

As with polypharmacy, “polydoctoring” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to specialize, patients still desire and benefit from an intimate and close relationship with one provider who is warm, concerned, and hopeful. Those traits can theoretically be provided by anyone and there is not something inherently wrong with having more than one provider. However, psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, especially at a time when we all feel lonely, disconnected, and depersonalized.
 

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com.

With COVID-19 vaccinations now underway, mental health experts around the world continue to push for patients with serious mental illness (SMI) to be considered a high-priority group for the vaccine.

Research shows that patients with SMI are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have higher rates of hospitalization and poor outcomes, Nicola Warren, MBBS, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and coauthors write in a viewpoint published online Dec. 15 in JAMA Psychiatry  

Factors behind the worse outcomes in individuals with SMI include concomitant medications, poorer premorbid general health, physical comorbidity, reduced access to medical care, and environmental and lifestyle factors such as lower socioeconomic status, overcrowding, smoking, and obesity.

“In light of these vulnerabilities, it is important that people with SMI are a priority group to receive a vaccination,” Dr. Warren and colleagues say.

Yet there are challenges at the individual and public health level in getting people with SMI vaccinated against COVID-19, they point out.

Challenges at the individual level include getting people with SMI to recognize the importance of the vaccine and combating negative beliefs about safety and misconceptions that the vaccine itself can make them sick with COVID-19.

Mental health professionals are “uniquely skilled” to deliver vaccine education, “being able to adapt for those with communication difficulties and balance factors influencing decision-making,” Dr. Warren and colleagues write. 

System-level barriers to vaccine uptake in people with SMI include access, awareness of services, cost, and other practical considerations, like getting to a vaccination clinic.

Research has shown that running vaccination clinics parallel to mental health services can boost vaccination rates by 25%, the authors note. Therefore, one solution may be to embed vaccination clinics within mental health services, Dr. Warren and colleagues suggest.
 

Join the chorus

Plans and policies to ensure rapid delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine are “vital,” they conclude. “Mental health clinicians have a key role in advocating for priority access to a COVID-19 vaccination for those with SMI, as well as facilitating its uptake,” they add.

Dr. Warren and her colleagues join a chorus of other mental health care providers who have sounded the alarm on the risks of COVID-19 for patients with SMI and the need to get them vaccinated early.

In a perspective article published last month in World Psychiatry, Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors called for individuals with SMI to have priority status for any COVID-19 vaccine, as reported by this news organization.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues noted that there is an ethical duty to prioritize vaccination for people with SMI given their increased risk of worse outcomes following COVID-19 infection and the structural barriers faced by people with SMI in accessing a vaccine.

Joining the chorus, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, warned in a JAMA Psychiatry viewpoint in April that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with SMI and the health care systems that serve them. 

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Dr. Druss wrote.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With COVID-19 vaccinations now underway, mental health experts around the world continue to push for patients with serious mental illness (SMI) to be considered a high-priority group for the vaccine.

Research shows that patients with SMI are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have higher rates of hospitalization and poor outcomes, Nicola Warren, MBBS, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and coauthors write in a viewpoint published online Dec. 15 in JAMA Psychiatry  

Factors behind the worse outcomes in individuals with SMI include concomitant medications, poorer premorbid general health, physical comorbidity, reduced access to medical care, and environmental and lifestyle factors such as lower socioeconomic status, overcrowding, smoking, and obesity.

“In light of these vulnerabilities, it is important that people with SMI are a priority group to receive a vaccination,” Dr. Warren and colleagues say.

Yet there are challenges at the individual and public health level in getting people with SMI vaccinated against COVID-19, they point out.

Challenges at the individual level include getting people with SMI to recognize the importance of the vaccine and combating negative beliefs about safety and misconceptions that the vaccine itself can make them sick with COVID-19.

Mental health professionals are “uniquely skilled” to deliver vaccine education, “being able to adapt for those with communication difficulties and balance factors influencing decision-making,” Dr. Warren and colleagues write. 

System-level barriers to vaccine uptake in people with SMI include access, awareness of services, cost, and other practical considerations, like getting to a vaccination clinic.

Research has shown that running vaccination clinics parallel to mental health services can boost vaccination rates by 25%, the authors note. Therefore, one solution may be to embed vaccination clinics within mental health services, Dr. Warren and colleagues suggest.
 

Join the chorus

Plans and policies to ensure rapid delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine are “vital,” they conclude. “Mental health clinicians have a key role in advocating for priority access to a COVID-19 vaccination for those with SMI, as well as facilitating its uptake,” they add.

Dr. Warren and her colleagues join a chorus of other mental health care providers who have sounded the alarm on the risks of COVID-19 for patients with SMI and the need to get them vaccinated early.

In a perspective article published last month in World Psychiatry, Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors called for individuals with SMI to have priority status for any COVID-19 vaccine, as reported by this news organization.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues noted that there is an ethical duty to prioritize vaccination for people with SMI given their increased risk of worse outcomes following COVID-19 infection and the structural barriers faced by people with SMI in accessing a vaccine.

Joining the chorus, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, warned in a JAMA Psychiatry viewpoint in April that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with SMI and the health care systems that serve them. 

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Dr. Druss wrote.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With COVID-19 vaccinations now underway, mental health experts around the world continue to push for patients with serious mental illness (SMI) to be considered a high-priority group for the vaccine.

Research shows that patients with SMI are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have higher rates of hospitalization and poor outcomes, Nicola Warren, MBBS, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and coauthors write in a viewpoint published online Dec. 15 in JAMA Psychiatry  

Factors behind the worse outcomes in individuals with SMI include concomitant medications, poorer premorbid general health, physical comorbidity, reduced access to medical care, and environmental and lifestyle factors such as lower socioeconomic status, overcrowding, smoking, and obesity.

“In light of these vulnerabilities, it is important that people with SMI are a priority group to receive a vaccination,” Dr. Warren and colleagues say.

Yet there are challenges at the individual and public health level in getting people with SMI vaccinated against COVID-19, they point out.

Challenges at the individual level include getting people with SMI to recognize the importance of the vaccine and combating negative beliefs about safety and misconceptions that the vaccine itself can make them sick with COVID-19.

Mental health professionals are “uniquely skilled” to deliver vaccine education, “being able to adapt for those with communication difficulties and balance factors influencing decision-making,” Dr. Warren and colleagues write. 

System-level barriers to vaccine uptake in people with SMI include access, awareness of services, cost, and other practical considerations, like getting to a vaccination clinic.

Research has shown that running vaccination clinics parallel to mental health services can boost vaccination rates by 25%, the authors note. Therefore, one solution may be to embed vaccination clinics within mental health services, Dr. Warren and colleagues suggest.
 

Join the chorus

Plans and policies to ensure rapid delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine are “vital,” they conclude. “Mental health clinicians have a key role in advocating for priority access to a COVID-19 vaccination for those with SMI, as well as facilitating its uptake,” they add.

Dr. Warren and her colleagues join a chorus of other mental health care providers who have sounded the alarm on the risks of COVID-19 for patients with SMI and the need to get them vaccinated early.

In a perspective article published last month in World Psychiatry, Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors called for individuals with SMI to have priority status for any COVID-19 vaccine, as reported by this news organization.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues noted that there is an ethical duty to prioritize vaccination for people with SMI given their increased risk of worse outcomes following COVID-19 infection and the structural barriers faced by people with SMI in accessing a vaccine.

Joining the chorus, Benjamin Druss, MD, MPH, from Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, warned in a JAMA Psychiatry viewpoint in April that the COVID-19 pandemic represents a looming crisis for patients with SMI and the health care systems that serve them. 

“Careful planning and execution at multiple levels will be essential for minimizing the adverse outcomes of this pandemic for this vulnerable population,” Dr. Druss wrote.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new monograph offers a far-reaching update on research and clinical management of bipolar disorders (BDs), including epidemiology, genetics, pathogenesis, psychosocial aspects, and current and investigational therapies.

“I regard this as a ‘global state-of-the-union’ type of paper designed to bring the world up to speed regarding where we’re at and where we’re going in terms of bipolar disorder, to present the changes on the scientific and clinical fronts, and to open up a global conversation about bipolar disorder,” lead author Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“The paper is oriented toward multidisciplinary care, with particular emphasis on primary care, as well as people in healthcare administration and policy, who want a snapshot of where we’re at,” said McIntyre, who is also the head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit and director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance in Chicago, Illinois.

The article was published online December 5 in The Lancet.
 

Severe, complex

The authors call BPs “a complex group of severe and chronic disorders” that include both BP I and BP II disorders.

“These disorders continue to be the world’s leading causes of disability, morbidity, and mortality, which are significant and getting worse, with studies indicating that bipolar disorders are associated with a loss of roughly 10 to 20 potential years of life,” McIntyre said.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of premature death in people with BD. The second is suicide, the authors state, noting that patients with BDs are roughly 20-30 times more likely to die by suicide compared with the general population. In addition, 30%-50% have a lifetime history of suicide attempts.

BP I is “defined by the presence of a syndromal manic episode,” while BP II is “defined by the presence of a syndromal hypomanic episode and a major depressive episode,” the authors state.

Unlike the DSM-IV-TR, the DSM-5 includes “persistently increased energy or activity, along with elevated, expansive, or irritable mood” in the diagnostic criteria for mania and hypomania, “so diagnosing mania on mood instability alone is no longer sufficient,” the authors note.

“Futuristic” technology

“Although the pathogenesis of BDs is unknown, approximately 70% of the risk for BDs is heritable,” the authors note. They review recent research into genetic loci associated with BDs, based on genome-wide association studies, and the role of genetics not only in BDs but also in overlapping neurologic and psychiatric conditions, insulin resistance, and endocannabinoid signaling.

Inflammatory disturbances may also be implicated, in part related to “lifestyle and environment exposures” common in BDs such as smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and trauma, they suggest.

An “exciting new technology” analyzing “pluripotent” stem cells might illuminate the pathogenesis of BDs and mechanism of action of treatments by shedding light on mitochondrial dysfunction, McIntyre said.

“This interest in stem cells might almost be seen as futuristic. It is currently being used in the laboratory to understand the biology of BD, and it may eventually lead to the development of new therapeutics,” he added.
 

“Exciting” treatments

“Our expansive list of treatments and soon-to-be new treatments is very exciting,” said McIntyre.

The authors highlight “ongoing controversy regarding the safe and appropriate use of antidepressants in BD,” cautioning against potential treatment-emergent hypomania and suggesting limited circumstances when antidepressants might be administered.

Lithium remains the “gold standard mood-stabilizing agent” and is “capable of reducing suicidality,” they note.

Nonpharmacologic interventions include patient self-management, compliance, and cognitive enhancement strategies, primary prevention for psychiatric and medical comorbidity, psychosocial treatments and lifestyle interventions during maintenance, as well as surveillance for suicidality during both acute and maintenance phases.

Novel potential treatments include coenzyme Q10, N-acetyl cysteine, statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, incretin-based therapies, insulin, nitrous oxide, ketamine, prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, and adjunctive bright light therapy.

The authors caution that these investigational agents “cannot be considered efficacious or safe” in the treatment of BDs at present.
 

Call to action

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he is glad that this “stellar group of authors” with “worldwide psychiatric expertise” wrote the article and he hopes it “gets the readership it deserves.”

Thase, who was not an author, said, “One takeaway is that BDs together comprise one of the world’s great public health problems — probably within the top 10.”

Another “has to do with our ability to do more with the tools we have — ie, ensuring diagnosis, implementing treatment, engaging social support, and using proven therapies from both psychopharmacologic and psychosocial domains.”

McIntyre characterized the article as a “public health call to action, incorporating screening, interesting neurobiological insights, an extensive set of treatments, and cool technological capabilities for the future.”

McIntyre has reported receiving grant support from the Stanley Medical Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Disease/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation, and speaker fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Intra-Cellular, Alkermes, and Minerva, and is chief executive officer of Champignon. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants and antipsychotics. He also has reported receiving royalties from the American Psychiatric Press Incorporated, Guilford Publications, Herald House, and W.W. Norton & Company.

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

A new monograph offers a far-reaching update on research and clinical management of bipolar disorders (BDs), including epidemiology, genetics, pathogenesis, psychosocial aspects, and current and investigational therapies.

“I regard this as a ‘global state-of-the-union’ type of paper designed to bring the world up to speed regarding where we’re at and where we’re going in terms of bipolar disorder, to present the changes on the scientific and clinical fronts, and to open up a global conversation about bipolar disorder,” lead author Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“The paper is oriented toward multidisciplinary care, with particular emphasis on primary care, as well as people in healthcare administration and policy, who want a snapshot of where we’re at,” said McIntyre, who is also the head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit and director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance in Chicago, Illinois.

The article was published online December 5 in The Lancet.
 

Severe, complex

The authors call BPs “a complex group of severe and chronic disorders” that include both BP I and BP II disorders.

“These disorders continue to be the world’s leading causes of disability, morbidity, and mortality, which are significant and getting worse, with studies indicating that bipolar disorders are associated with a loss of roughly 10 to 20 potential years of life,” McIntyre said.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of premature death in people with BD. The second is suicide, the authors state, noting that patients with BDs are roughly 20-30 times more likely to die by suicide compared with the general population. In addition, 30%-50% have a lifetime history of suicide attempts.

BP I is “defined by the presence of a syndromal manic episode,” while BP II is “defined by the presence of a syndromal hypomanic episode and a major depressive episode,” the authors state.

Unlike the DSM-IV-TR, the DSM-5 includes “persistently increased energy or activity, along with elevated, expansive, or irritable mood” in the diagnostic criteria for mania and hypomania, “so diagnosing mania on mood instability alone is no longer sufficient,” the authors note.

“Futuristic” technology

“Although the pathogenesis of BDs is unknown, approximately 70% of the risk for BDs is heritable,” the authors note. They review recent research into genetic loci associated with BDs, based on genome-wide association studies, and the role of genetics not only in BDs but also in overlapping neurologic and psychiatric conditions, insulin resistance, and endocannabinoid signaling.

Inflammatory disturbances may also be implicated, in part related to “lifestyle and environment exposures” common in BDs such as smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and trauma, they suggest.

An “exciting new technology” analyzing “pluripotent” stem cells might illuminate the pathogenesis of BDs and mechanism of action of treatments by shedding light on mitochondrial dysfunction, McIntyre said.

“This interest in stem cells might almost be seen as futuristic. It is currently being used in the laboratory to understand the biology of BD, and it may eventually lead to the development of new therapeutics,” he added.
 

“Exciting” treatments

“Our expansive list of treatments and soon-to-be new treatments is very exciting,” said McIntyre.

The authors highlight “ongoing controversy regarding the safe and appropriate use of antidepressants in BD,” cautioning against potential treatment-emergent hypomania and suggesting limited circumstances when antidepressants might be administered.

Lithium remains the “gold standard mood-stabilizing agent” and is “capable of reducing suicidality,” they note.

Nonpharmacologic interventions include patient self-management, compliance, and cognitive enhancement strategies, primary prevention for psychiatric and medical comorbidity, psychosocial treatments and lifestyle interventions during maintenance, as well as surveillance for suicidality during both acute and maintenance phases.

Novel potential treatments include coenzyme Q10, N-acetyl cysteine, statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, incretin-based therapies, insulin, nitrous oxide, ketamine, prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, and adjunctive bright light therapy.

The authors caution that these investigational agents “cannot be considered efficacious or safe” in the treatment of BDs at present.
 

Call to action

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he is glad that this “stellar group of authors” with “worldwide psychiatric expertise” wrote the article and he hopes it “gets the readership it deserves.”

Thase, who was not an author, said, “One takeaway is that BDs together comprise one of the world’s great public health problems — probably within the top 10.”

Another “has to do with our ability to do more with the tools we have — ie, ensuring diagnosis, implementing treatment, engaging social support, and using proven therapies from both psychopharmacologic and psychosocial domains.”

McIntyre characterized the article as a “public health call to action, incorporating screening, interesting neurobiological insights, an extensive set of treatments, and cool technological capabilities for the future.”

McIntyre has reported receiving grant support from the Stanley Medical Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Disease/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation, and speaker fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Intra-Cellular, Alkermes, and Minerva, and is chief executive officer of Champignon. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants and antipsychotics. He also has reported receiving royalties from the American Psychiatric Press Incorporated, Guilford Publications, Herald House, and W.W. Norton & Company.

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

A new monograph offers a far-reaching update on research and clinical management of bipolar disorders (BDs), including epidemiology, genetics, pathogenesis, psychosocial aspects, and current and investigational therapies.

“I regard this as a ‘global state-of-the-union’ type of paper designed to bring the world up to speed regarding where we’re at and where we’re going in terms of bipolar disorder, to present the changes on the scientific and clinical fronts, and to open up a global conversation about bipolar disorder,” lead author Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“The paper is oriented toward multidisciplinary care, with particular emphasis on primary care, as well as people in healthcare administration and policy, who want a snapshot of where we’re at,” said McIntyre, who is also the head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit and director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance in Chicago, Illinois.

The article was published online December 5 in The Lancet.
 

Severe, complex

The authors call BPs “a complex group of severe and chronic disorders” that include both BP I and BP II disorders.

“These disorders continue to be the world’s leading causes of disability, morbidity, and mortality, which are significant and getting worse, with studies indicating that bipolar disorders are associated with a loss of roughly 10 to 20 potential years of life,” McIntyre said.

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of premature death in people with BD. The second is suicide, the authors state, noting that patients with BDs are roughly 20-30 times more likely to die by suicide compared with the general population. In addition, 30%-50% have a lifetime history of suicide attempts.

BP I is “defined by the presence of a syndromal manic episode,” while BP II is “defined by the presence of a syndromal hypomanic episode and a major depressive episode,” the authors state.

Unlike the DSM-IV-TR, the DSM-5 includes “persistently increased energy or activity, along with elevated, expansive, or irritable mood” in the diagnostic criteria for mania and hypomania, “so diagnosing mania on mood instability alone is no longer sufficient,” the authors note.

“Futuristic” technology

“Although the pathogenesis of BDs is unknown, approximately 70% of the risk for BDs is heritable,” the authors note. They review recent research into genetic loci associated with BDs, based on genome-wide association studies, and the role of genetics not only in BDs but also in overlapping neurologic and psychiatric conditions, insulin resistance, and endocannabinoid signaling.

Inflammatory disturbances may also be implicated, in part related to “lifestyle and environment exposures” common in BDs such as smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and trauma, they suggest.

An “exciting new technology” analyzing “pluripotent” stem cells might illuminate the pathogenesis of BDs and mechanism of action of treatments by shedding light on mitochondrial dysfunction, McIntyre said.

“This interest in stem cells might almost be seen as futuristic. It is currently being used in the laboratory to understand the biology of BD, and it may eventually lead to the development of new therapeutics,” he added.
 

“Exciting” treatments

“Our expansive list of treatments and soon-to-be new treatments is very exciting,” said McIntyre.

The authors highlight “ongoing controversy regarding the safe and appropriate use of antidepressants in BD,” cautioning against potential treatment-emergent hypomania and suggesting limited circumstances when antidepressants might be administered.

Lithium remains the “gold standard mood-stabilizing agent” and is “capable of reducing suicidality,” they note.

Nonpharmacologic interventions include patient self-management, compliance, and cognitive enhancement strategies, primary prevention for psychiatric and medical comorbidity, psychosocial treatments and lifestyle interventions during maintenance, as well as surveillance for suicidality during both acute and maintenance phases.

Novel potential treatments include coenzyme Q10, N-acetyl cysteine, statins, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, omega-3 fatty acids, incretin-based therapies, insulin, nitrous oxide, ketamine, prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, and adjunctive bright light therapy.

The authors caution that these investigational agents “cannot be considered efficacious or safe” in the treatment of BDs at present.
 

Call to action

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said he is glad that this “stellar group of authors” with “worldwide psychiatric expertise” wrote the article and he hopes it “gets the readership it deserves.”

Thase, who was not an author, said, “One takeaway is that BDs together comprise one of the world’s great public health problems — probably within the top 10.”

Another “has to do with our ability to do more with the tools we have — ie, ensuring diagnosis, implementing treatment, engaging social support, and using proven therapies from both psychopharmacologic and psychosocial domains.”

McIntyre characterized the article as a “public health call to action, incorporating screening, interesting neurobiological insights, an extensive set of treatments, and cool technological capabilities for the future.”

McIntyre has reported receiving grant support from the Stanley Medical Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Disease/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation, and speaker fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Intra-Cellular, Alkermes, and Minerva, and is chief executive officer of Champignon. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article. Thase has reported consulting with and receiving research funding from many of the companies that manufacture/sell antidepressants and antipsychotics. He also has reported receiving royalties from the American Psychiatric Press Incorporated, Guilford Publications, Herald House, and W.W. Norton & Company.

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

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.

There’s a reason they’re called smartphones.

Indeed, how patients use their smartphones and where they take them provides insight into what has been termed their “digital phenotype.” It’s information that, analyzed correctly, becomes useful in differentiating bipolar disorder from borderline personality disorder, a distinction that’s often challenging in clinical practice, Kate E.A. Saunders, MD, DPhil, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Dr. Saunders, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues have developed a smartphone app enabling patients to briefly characterize their current mood on a daily basis, as well as a machine learning model to analyze this data stream as patients’ moods evolve over time. In their prospective longitudinal Automated Monitoring of Symptom Severity (AMoSS) study of 48 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 31 with borderline personality disorder, and 51 healthy volunteers, the tool correctly classified 75% of participants into the correct diagnostic category on the basis of 20 daily mood ratings (Transl Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 13;81:274. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0334-0).

The app also monitors activity via accelerometry and geolocation to assess an individual’s circadian rest-activity patterns, as well as telephone use and texting behavior. In another report from AMoSS, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators showed that these patterns also distinguish persons with bipolar disorder from those with borderline personality disorder, who in turn differ from healthy controls (Transl Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 20;91:195. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0526-2).

“I think we can use these approaches to inform our diagnostic practice. It doesn’t replace doctors, but clearly it can add to diagnostic accuracy,” she said.

Borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder are common diagnoses with quite different treatment approaches and prognoses. Studies have shown that rates of misdiagnosis of the two disorders are significant. The challenge is that they share overlapping diagnostic criteria, including prominent mood instability, which is difficult to assess reliably in clinical practice. That’s because the assessment relies on retrospective self-report of how patients felt in the past, which is often colored by their present mood state. The smartphone app sidesteps that limitation by having patients rate their mood daily digitally across six categories – anxiety, elation, sadness, anger, irritability, and energy – on a 1-7 scale.

The machine learning model that analyzes this information organizes the voluminous data into what Dr. Saunders called “signatures of mood” and breaks them down using rough path theory, a mathematical concept based upon differential equations. Dr. Saunders and colleagues have demonstrated that the shifting daily mood self-rating patterns can be used not only to sharpen the differential diagnosis between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, but also to predict future mood. Automated analysis of the past 20 previous mood self-ratings predicted the next day’s mood in healthy controls with 89%-98% accuracy, depending upon which of the six mood categories was under scrutiny.

The predictive power in patients with bipolar disorder was also good, ranging from 82% accuracy for the energetic and anxious domains to 90% for the angry mood category. This ability to predict future mood states could have clinical value by assisting bipolar patients in enhancing proactive self-management and managing their mood stability to avoid depressive or manic relapse, although this has yet to be studied.

“For borderline personality disorder the predictive accuracy was not so good – 70%-78% – but perhaps that doesn’t matter,” Dr. Saunders said. “Perhaps that difficulty in predicting mood may actually be quite a useful diagnostic marker.”

‘Mr. Jones, the doctor is ready to see your phone now.’

The app’s accelerometry and geolocation capabilities can also enhance diagnostic accuracy, as has been shown in the AMoSS study.

The geolocation analysis generates data on the places a patient has gone and how much time was spent there. Feeding that information into the machine learning model predicted the presence or absence of depression with 85% accuracy for bipolar disorder, but couldn’t predict depression at all in borderline personality disorder.

“So we get a sense that people with bipolar disorder have behavioral manifestations of their mood symptoms which are much more consistent with one another and appear to change very consistently with their mood state, whereas borderline personality disorder seems to be characterized by something that’s much more unstable and unpredictable – and we can pick up these predictive variables using our smartphones,” Dr. Saunders said.

As depressive symptoms arise in patients with bipolar disorder, affected individuals display much less day-to-day variability in movement as measured by accelerometry. These changes predicted bipolar disorder with 76% specificity and 48% sensitivity.

“That’s OK. But we can’t do that at all in people with borderline personality disorder, again highlighting the fact that behavioral manifestations and symptoms in these groups are very, very different,” Dr. Saunders observed.

In AMoSS, analysis of activity, geolocation, and distal temperature rhythms showed that the individuals with borderline personality disorder displayed evidence of delayed circadian function, with a distinctive rest-activity pattern that differed from persons with bipolar disorder. This delayed circadian function might provide a novel therapeutic target in borderline personality disorder, a condition for which there is a notable lack of effective pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions.

Phone use patterns were revealing. Patients with bipolar disorder had an increased total telephone call frequency relative to the healthy controls, whereas those with borderline personality disorder used text messaging much more frequently, consistent with the notion that borderline patients have difficulty in interpersonal communication.

Smartphone-based diagnostic differentiation between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder isn’t ready for prime time use in clinical practice, Dr. Saunders said. This is groundbreaking work that needs to be refined and replicated in larger studies. There are important ethical and data protection issues that require attention. But patients are gung-ho. Dr. Saunders noted that participant compliance in AMoSS was “extraordinarily good,” at 82%. Moreover, even though the study lasted for 3 months, more than 60% of subjects continued filing mood reports for 12 months.

“Smartphones may also give us an improved understanding of the lived experience of people with mental health problems. That’s certainly the feedback we got a lot from patients. They enjoy using this technology. They feel it’s helpful to be able to show their clinician this is what it’s like for them,” Dr. Saunders said.
 

Clinical usefulness is limited

The study was interesting as a pilot, and it is technologically very innovative. However, at this stage, it is unclear how the results can be used clinically, said Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, when asked about the findings.

There is a place for using this type of technology for patients living in remote areas, for example. However, Dr. Galynker, director of the Richard and Cynthia Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder in New York, said such technology should be viewed as augmentation rather than as a substitute for face-to-face treatment.

“Typically, if clinicians have enough time to speak to the patient and to take history, they can differentiate between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: The former is cyclical, the latter is less so. However, this is hard to do without face-to-face contact, or when you only have 10 minutes,” said Dr. Galynker, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine and director of the Galynker Research and Prevention Laboratory, both at Mount Sinai in New York.

Dr. Saunders’ work is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galynker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. He has no other disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ECNP 2020. Session S21.

There’s a reason they’re called smartphones.

Indeed, how patients use their smartphones and where they take them provides insight into what has been termed their “digital phenotype.” It’s information that, analyzed correctly, becomes useful in differentiating bipolar disorder from borderline personality disorder, a distinction that’s often challenging in clinical practice, Kate E.A. Saunders, MD, DPhil, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Dr. Saunders, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues have developed a smartphone app enabling patients to briefly characterize their current mood on a daily basis, as well as a machine learning model to analyze this data stream as patients’ moods evolve over time. In their prospective longitudinal Automated Monitoring of Symptom Severity (AMoSS) study of 48 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 31 with borderline personality disorder, and 51 healthy volunteers, the tool correctly classified 75% of participants into the correct diagnostic category on the basis of 20 daily mood ratings (Transl Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 13;81:274. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0334-0).

The app also monitors activity via accelerometry and geolocation to assess an individual’s circadian rest-activity patterns, as well as telephone use and texting behavior. In another report from AMoSS, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators showed that these patterns also distinguish persons with bipolar disorder from those with borderline personality disorder, who in turn differ from healthy controls (Transl Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 20;91:195. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0526-2).

“I think we can use these approaches to inform our diagnostic practice. It doesn’t replace doctors, but clearly it can add to diagnostic accuracy,” she said.

Borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder are common diagnoses with quite different treatment approaches and prognoses. Studies have shown that rates of misdiagnosis of the two disorders are significant. The challenge is that they share overlapping diagnostic criteria, including prominent mood instability, which is difficult to assess reliably in clinical practice. That’s because the assessment relies on retrospective self-report of how patients felt in the past, which is often colored by their present mood state. The smartphone app sidesteps that limitation by having patients rate their mood daily digitally across six categories – anxiety, elation, sadness, anger, irritability, and energy – on a 1-7 scale.

The machine learning model that analyzes this information organizes the voluminous data into what Dr. Saunders called “signatures of mood” and breaks them down using rough path theory, a mathematical concept based upon differential equations. Dr. Saunders and colleagues have demonstrated that the shifting daily mood self-rating patterns can be used not only to sharpen the differential diagnosis between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, but also to predict future mood. Automated analysis of the past 20 previous mood self-ratings predicted the next day’s mood in healthy controls with 89%-98% accuracy, depending upon which of the six mood categories was under scrutiny.

The predictive power in patients with bipolar disorder was also good, ranging from 82% accuracy for the energetic and anxious domains to 90% for the angry mood category. This ability to predict future mood states could have clinical value by assisting bipolar patients in enhancing proactive self-management and managing their mood stability to avoid depressive or manic relapse, although this has yet to be studied.

“For borderline personality disorder the predictive accuracy was not so good – 70%-78% – but perhaps that doesn’t matter,” Dr. Saunders said. “Perhaps that difficulty in predicting mood may actually be quite a useful diagnostic marker.”

‘Mr. Jones, the doctor is ready to see your phone now.’

The app’s accelerometry and geolocation capabilities can also enhance diagnostic accuracy, as has been shown in the AMoSS study.

The geolocation analysis generates data on the places a patient has gone and how much time was spent there. Feeding that information into the machine learning model predicted the presence or absence of depression with 85% accuracy for bipolar disorder, but couldn’t predict depression at all in borderline personality disorder.

“So we get a sense that people with bipolar disorder have behavioral manifestations of their mood symptoms which are much more consistent with one another and appear to change very consistently with their mood state, whereas borderline personality disorder seems to be characterized by something that’s much more unstable and unpredictable – and we can pick up these predictive variables using our smartphones,” Dr. Saunders said.

As depressive symptoms arise in patients with bipolar disorder, affected individuals display much less day-to-day variability in movement as measured by accelerometry. These changes predicted bipolar disorder with 76% specificity and 48% sensitivity.

“That’s OK. But we can’t do that at all in people with borderline personality disorder, again highlighting the fact that behavioral manifestations and symptoms in these groups are very, very different,” Dr. Saunders observed.

In AMoSS, analysis of activity, geolocation, and distal temperature rhythms showed that the individuals with borderline personality disorder displayed evidence of delayed circadian function, with a distinctive rest-activity pattern that differed from persons with bipolar disorder. This delayed circadian function might provide a novel therapeutic target in borderline personality disorder, a condition for which there is a notable lack of effective pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions.

Phone use patterns were revealing. Patients with bipolar disorder had an increased total telephone call frequency relative to the healthy controls, whereas those with borderline personality disorder used text messaging much more frequently, consistent with the notion that borderline patients have difficulty in interpersonal communication.

Smartphone-based diagnostic differentiation between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder isn’t ready for prime time use in clinical practice, Dr. Saunders said. This is groundbreaking work that needs to be refined and replicated in larger studies. There are important ethical and data protection issues that require attention. But patients are gung-ho. Dr. Saunders noted that participant compliance in AMoSS was “extraordinarily good,” at 82%. Moreover, even though the study lasted for 3 months, more than 60% of subjects continued filing mood reports for 12 months.

“Smartphones may also give us an improved understanding of the lived experience of people with mental health problems. That’s certainly the feedback we got a lot from patients. They enjoy using this technology. They feel it’s helpful to be able to show their clinician this is what it’s like for them,” Dr. Saunders said.
 

Clinical usefulness is limited

The study was interesting as a pilot, and it is technologically very innovative. However, at this stage, it is unclear how the results can be used clinically, said Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, when asked about the findings.

There is a place for using this type of technology for patients living in remote areas, for example. However, Dr. Galynker, director of the Richard and Cynthia Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder in New York, said such technology should be viewed as augmentation rather than as a substitute for face-to-face treatment.

“Typically, if clinicians have enough time to speak to the patient and to take history, they can differentiate between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: The former is cyclical, the latter is less so. However, this is hard to do without face-to-face contact, or when you only have 10 minutes,” said Dr. Galynker, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine and director of the Galynker Research and Prevention Laboratory, both at Mount Sinai in New York.

Dr. Saunders’ work is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galynker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. He has no other disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ECNP 2020. Session S21.

There’s a reason they’re called smartphones.

Indeed, how patients use their smartphones and where they take them provides insight into what has been termed their “digital phenotype.” It’s information that, analyzed correctly, becomes useful in differentiating bipolar disorder from borderline personality disorder, a distinction that’s often challenging in clinical practice, Kate E.A. Saunders, MD, DPhil, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Dr. Saunders, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford (England), and colleagues have developed a smartphone app enabling patients to briefly characterize their current mood on a daily basis, as well as a machine learning model to analyze this data stream as patients’ moods evolve over time. In their prospective longitudinal Automated Monitoring of Symptom Severity (AMoSS) study of 48 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 31 with borderline personality disorder, and 51 healthy volunteers, the tool correctly classified 75% of participants into the correct diagnostic category on the basis of 20 daily mood ratings (Transl Psychiatry. 2018 Dec 13;81:274. doi: 10.1038/s41398-018-0334-0).

The app also monitors activity via accelerometry and geolocation to assess an individual’s circadian rest-activity patterns, as well as telephone use and texting behavior. In another report from AMoSS, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators showed that these patterns also distinguish persons with bipolar disorder from those with borderline personality disorder, who in turn differ from healthy controls (Transl Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 20;91:195. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0526-2).

“I think we can use these approaches to inform our diagnostic practice. It doesn’t replace doctors, but clearly it can add to diagnostic accuracy,” she said.

Borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder are common diagnoses with quite different treatment approaches and prognoses. Studies have shown that rates of misdiagnosis of the two disorders are significant. The challenge is that they share overlapping diagnostic criteria, including prominent mood instability, which is difficult to assess reliably in clinical practice. That’s because the assessment relies on retrospective self-report of how patients felt in the past, which is often colored by their present mood state. The smartphone app sidesteps that limitation by having patients rate their mood daily digitally across six categories – anxiety, elation, sadness, anger, irritability, and energy – on a 1-7 scale.

The machine learning model that analyzes this information organizes the voluminous data into what Dr. Saunders called “signatures of mood” and breaks them down using rough path theory, a mathematical concept based upon differential equations. Dr. Saunders and colleagues have demonstrated that the shifting daily mood self-rating patterns can be used not only to sharpen the differential diagnosis between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, but also to predict future mood. Automated analysis of the past 20 previous mood self-ratings predicted the next day’s mood in healthy controls with 89%-98% accuracy, depending upon which of the six mood categories was under scrutiny.

The predictive power in patients with bipolar disorder was also good, ranging from 82% accuracy for the energetic and anxious domains to 90% for the angry mood category. This ability to predict future mood states could have clinical value by assisting bipolar patients in enhancing proactive self-management and managing their mood stability to avoid depressive or manic relapse, although this has yet to be studied.

“For borderline personality disorder the predictive accuracy was not so good – 70%-78% – but perhaps that doesn’t matter,” Dr. Saunders said. “Perhaps that difficulty in predicting mood may actually be quite a useful diagnostic marker.”

‘Mr. Jones, the doctor is ready to see your phone now.’

The app’s accelerometry and geolocation capabilities can also enhance diagnostic accuracy, as has been shown in the AMoSS study.

The geolocation analysis generates data on the places a patient has gone and how much time was spent there. Feeding that information into the machine learning model predicted the presence or absence of depression with 85% accuracy for bipolar disorder, but couldn’t predict depression at all in borderline personality disorder.

“So we get a sense that people with bipolar disorder have behavioral manifestations of their mood symptoms which are much more consistent with one another and appear to change very consistently with their mood state, whereas borderline personality disorder seems to be characterized by something that’s much more unstable and unpredictable – and we can pick up these predictive variables using our smartphones,” Dr. Saunders said.

As depressive symptoms arise in patients with bipolar disorder, affected individuals display much less day-to-day variability in movement as measured by accelerometry. These changes predicted bipolar disorder with 76% specificity and 48% sensitivity.

“That’s OK. But we can’t do that at all in people with borderline personality disorder, again highlighting the fact that behavioral manifestations and symptoms in these groups are very, very different,” Dr. Saunders observed.

In AMoSS, analysis of activity, geolocation, and distal temperature rhythms showed that the individuals with borderline personality disorder displayed evidence of delayed circadian function, with a distinctive rest-activity pattern that differed from persons with bipolar disorder. This delayed circadian function might provide a novel therapeutic target in borderline personality disorder, a condition for which there is a notable lack of effective pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions.

Phone use patterns were revealing. Patients with bipolar disorder had an increased total telephone call frequency relative to the healthy controls, whereas those with borderline personality disorder used text messaging much more frequently, consistent with the notion that borderline patients have difficulty in interpersonal communication.

Smartphone-based diagnostic differentiation between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder isn’t ready for prime time use in clinical practice, Dr. Saunders said. This is groundbreaking work that needs to be refined and replicated in larger studies. There are important ethical and data protection issues that require attention. But patients are gung-ho. Dr. Saunders noted that participant compliance in AMoSS was “extraordinarily good,” at 82%. Moreover, even though the study lasted for 3 months, more than 60% of subjects continued filing mood reports for 12 months.

“Smartphones may also give us an improved understanding of the lived experience of people with mental health problems. That’s certainly the feedback we got a lot from patients. They enjoy using this technology. They feel it’s helpful to be able to show their clinician this is what it’s like for them,” Dr. Saunders said.
 

Clinical usefulness is limited

The study was interesting as a pilot, and it is technologically very innovative. However, at this stage, it is unclear how the results can be used clinically, said Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, when asked about the findings.

There is a place for using this type of technology for patients living in remote areas, for example. However, Dr. Galynker, director of the Richard and Cynthia Zirinsky Center for Bipolar Disorder in New York, said such technology should be viewed as augmentation rather than as a substitute for face-to-face treatment.

“Typically, if clinicians have enough time to speak to the patient and to take history, they can differentiate between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder: The former is cyclical, the latter is less so. However, this is hard to do without face-to-face contact, or when you only have 10 minutes,” said Dr. Galynker, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine and director of the Galynker Research and Prevention Laboratory, both at Mount Sinai in New York.

Dr. Saunders’ work is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galynker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. He has no other disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: ECNP 2020. Session S21.

When selecting pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, clinical and prognostic correlates will ultimately influence what treatments make the most sense for a patient – but the process is a balancing act, according to Joseph F. Goldberg, MD.

“Everything we do in medicine in general, and psychiatry, and bipolar disorder in particular is a risk-benefit analysis,” Dr. Goldberg said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Everything has its side effects. We’re always balancing risks and benefits.”

Patients with bipolar disorder often present with three common subtypes of the illness: Those who have associated psychosis, comorbid anxiety disorders, and comorbid ADHD. “These are three common presentations of the many, many kinds of presentations,” said Dr. Goldberg, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Bipolar disorder with associated psychosis

In the case of bipolar I disorder, more than 50% of manic episodes have some element of psychosis, with as many as 10% of patients showing signs of delusions 2 years after an episode, Dr. Goldberg explained. In these patients, mania relapse is predicted by mood-incongruent psychosis – a condition usually associated with schizophrenia, he said.

“If [they] have unusual beliefs and ideas, and they’re not consistent with a particular mood state, we sometimes clinically think this sounds more like a primary psychotic process,” he said. “Maybe, but not necessarily. So just because the patient may say, ‘The FBI is after me,’ or, ‘My thoughts are being read over the Internet,’ and they don’t connect that with a grandiose theme, it doesn’t negate a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.”

Psychotic mania is also associated with comorbid anxiety disorder. About half of patients with bipolar I disorder will also experience impairments of attention, executive functioning, and verbal memory separately from ADHD. “The cognitive symptoms of bipolar disorder that are part of what’s inherited doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s a clear greater degree of neuropsychological impairment in psychotic than nonpsychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Lithium has a poor response in the presence of psychosis in patients with bipolar disorder but performs better when the patient receives it alongside an antipsychotic. “Lithium does have value in psychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said. “Psychosis would be a negative prognostic sign, and certainly an indication for including an antipsychotic.”

In contrast to lithium, divalproex has shown evidence in reducing manic and psychotic symptoms similarly to haloperidol. “Divalproex may reduce mania symptoms, whether or not it’s helping psychosis. You’d think you have to get both reduced at the same time, but actually can see that even if there’s baseline psychosis, that does not diminish the chance of seeing a reduction in core mania symptoms,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Carbamazepine may also be advantageous to use over lithium when patients present with delusions, and a combination of carbamazepine and lithium may be comparable to haloperidol in combination with lithium when treating psychotic mania. “What we do know is, at least in some studies, there may be some greater value in treating psychotic mania with carbamazepine as compared to lithium, particularly when there are delusions present, more so than hallucinations or formal thought disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In patients with bipolar disorder and associated psychotic mania, clinicians should avoid dopamine agonists such as amphetamine and pramipexole, as well as ketamine. While some evidence has shown that second-generation antipsychotics work to treat bipolar depression, “there’s not really an evidence base to suggest that first-generation antipsychotics are protective against depression,” Dr. Goldberg said.
 

Bipolar disorder with anxiety

An association exists between comorbid anxiety disorders in patients with bipolar disorder and having a younger age of onset, in people who are less likely to recover from an initial mood episode, in people with poorer quality of life and role functioning, and in people who are less euthymic and more likely to attempt suicide, Dr. Goldberg said.

In addition, some patients may demonstrate symptoms of anxiety that aren’t part of the DSM-5 criteria for an anxiety disorder. Dr. Goldberg said he asks his patients to specify what they mean when they say they feel anxious.

“I always ask patients to tell me in very basic terms what [they] mean by anxiety. If they say, ‘I just I can’t sit still; I’m very fidgety,’ maybe that’s akathisia,” he said. “Or maybe if they say they’re very anxious, what they mean is they have so much energy they can’t contain it. This is mania or hypomania that they’re misconstruing as anxiety. We have to be very diligent and vigilant in clarifying the language here.”

To treat comorbid anxiety in patients with bipolar disorder, consider adjunctive olanzapine or lamotrigine, as both have evidence of anxiolytic efficacy. “Olanzapine does count as an antianxiety agent. Would you use it just as an antianxiety agent? Probably not in and of itself, but there’s other compelling reasons to use it,” he said. Before assuming you need to add another medication to address anxiety in a patient, “step back and think perhaps their anxiety symptoms will in themselves remit with olanzapine,” he said. Olanzapine can also be potentially used in cases where a patient has mania and anxiety to treat both conditions, he added.

Divalproex is another option for patients that has anxiolytic efficacy. “In the context of bipolar depression, divalproex does have antianxiety properties,” Dr. Goldberg said. Other anxiolytic options include lurasidone, cariprazine, quetiapine, and combination olanzapine–fluoxetine.
 

Bipolar disorder and ADHD

Among patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid adult ADHD, cognitive dysfunction inherent to bipolar disorder may be difficult to distinguish from signs of ADHD, Dr. Goldberg explained, with about 20% of people with bipolar I disorder and about 30% of people with bipolar II disorder have deficits of attentional processing, verbal memory, and executive functioning.

“Some researchers are very intrigued by the notion that cognitive problems and attentional problems aren’t necessarily a sign of [ADHD] comorbidities. They might be, but they may just be part of the endophenotype or the non-overt, genetically driven phenomenology that makes bipolar disorder so heterogeneous,” he said.

Patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid ADHD are more likely to have mania than depression, the condition is more common in men, and these patients are more likely to have substance use problems, increased risk of suicide attempts, problems in school, lower socioeconomic status, greater unemployment history, higher divorce rates, and low family history of bipolar disorder. Clinicians should check a patient’s history if they suspect comorbid adult ADHD in their patients with bipolar disorder, as there is a good chance evidence of ADHD will be present around the time of adolescence.

“You don’t wake up with [ADHD] at age 40, at least that’s not the prevailing perspective,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Focus on the ADHD symptoms that do not overlap with bipolar disorder, such as nondiscrete, chronic symptoms; lack of psychosis and suicidality; no evidence of grandiose beliefs; lack of hypersexuality; and depression that is not prominent. “You really need to go back in time and get some clarity as to the longitudinal course. If this was present earlier on and it persists into adulthood and it’s not better accounted for by either what we think of as the cognitive pervasive problems that emerge in bipolar disorder, or in relatives as a collaborator for attentional problems and bipolar disorder, we can then contemplate [whether] there’s a plausible basis for using a stimulant or [other ADHD] treatment,” he said.

In patients who are found to have adult comorbid ADHD and are nonmanic and nonpsychotic, stimulants do have an effect. Studies suggest that amphetamines such as adjunctive lisdexamfetamine added to a mood stabilizer show an improvement in ADHD symptoms after 4 weeks (Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013; 28[5]:421-7).

Adjunctive methylphenidate added to a mood stabilizer has also shown evidence of not causing treatment-emergent mania. “If you’re going to use methylphenidate, make sure it’s in the context of an antimanic mood stabilizer,” Dr. Goldberg said. In one study, methylphenidate without a mood stabilizer caused an increase in manic episodes within 3 months (Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 1;174:341-8).

“All may pose safe and effective evidence-based, albeit provisional, but evidence-based options to consider in targeting the attentional symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

He reported that he has been a consultant for BioXcel Therapeutics, Medscape/WebMD, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics. In addition, Dr. Goldberg is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Neurocrine, Otsuka, and Sunovion; and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When selecting pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, clinical and prognostic correlates will ultimately influence what treatments make the most sense for a patient – but the process is a balancing act, according to Joseph F. Goldberg, MD.

“Everything we do in medicine in general, and psychiatry, and bipolar disorder in particular is a risk-benefit analysis,” Dr. Goldberg said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Everything has its side effects. We’re always balancing risks and benefits.”

Patients with bipolar disorder often present with three common subtypes of the illness: Those who have associated psychosis, comorbid anxiety disorders, and comorbid ADHD. “These are three common presentations of the many, many kinds of presentations,” said Dr. Goldberg, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Bipolar disorder with associated psychosis

In the case of bipolar I disorder, more than 50% of manic episodes have some element of psychosis, with as many as 10% of patients showing signs of delusions 2 years after an episode, Dr. Goldberg explained. In these patients, mania relapse is predicted by mood-incongruent psychosis – a condition usually associated with schizophrenia, he said.

“If [they] have unusual beliefs and ideas, and they’re not consistent with a particular mood state, we sometimes clinically think this sounds more like a primary psychotic process,” he said. “Maybe, but not necessarily. So just because the patient may say, ‘The FBI is after me,’ or, ‘My thoughts are being read over the Internet,’ and they don’t connect that with a grandiose theme, it doesn’t negate a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.”

Psychotic mania is also associated with comorbid anxiety disorder. About half of patients with bipolar I disorder will also experience impairments of attention, executive functioning, and verbal memory separately from ADHD. “The cognitive symptoms of bipolar disorder that are part of what’s inherited doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s a clear greater degree of neuropsychological impairment in psychotic than nonpsychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Lithium has a poor response in the presence of psychosis in patients with bipolar disorder but performs better when the patient receives it alongside an antipsychotic. “Lithium does have value in psychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said. “Psychosis would be a negative prognostic sign, and certainly an indication for including an antipsychotic.”

In contrast to lithium, divalproex has shown evidence in reducing manic and psychotic symptoms similarly to haloperidol. “Divalproex may reduce mania symptoms, whether or not it’s helping psychosis. You’d think you have to get both reduced at the same time, but actually can see that even if there’s baseline psychosis, that does not diminish the chance of seeing a reduction in core mania symptoms,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Carbamazepine may also be advantageous to use over lithium when patients present with delusions, and a combination of carbamazepine and lithium may be comparable to haloperidol in combination with lithium when treating psychotic mania. “What we do know is, at least in some studies, there may be some greater value in treating psychotic mania with carbamazepine as compared to lithium, particularly when there are delusions present, more so than hallucinations or formal thought disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In patients with bipolar disorder and associated psychotic mania, clinicians should avoid dopamine agonists such as amphetamine and pramipexole, as well as ketamine. While some evidence has shown that second-generation antipsychotics work to treat bipolar depression, “there’s not really an evidence base to suggest that first-generation antipsychotics are protective against depression,” Dr. Goldberg said.
 

Bipolar disorder with anxiety

An association exists between comorbid anxiety disorders in patients with bipolar disorder and having a younger age of onset, in people who are less likely to recover from an initial mood episode, in people with poorer quality of life and role functioning, and in people who are less euthymic and more likely to attempt suicide, Dr. Goldberg said.

In addition, some patients may demonstrate symptoms of anxiety that aren’t part of the DSM-5 criteria for an anxiety disorder. Dr. Goldberg said he asks his patients to specify what they mean when they say they feel anxious.

“I always ask patients to tell me in very basic terms what [they] mean by anxiety. If they say, ‘I just I can’t sit still; I’m very fidgety,’ maybe that’s akathisia,” he said. “Or maybe if they say they’re very anxious, what they mean is they have so much energy they can’t contain it. This is mania or hypomania that they’re misconstruing as anxiety. We have to be very diligent and vigilant in clarifying the language here.”

To treat comorbid anxiety in patients with bipolar disorder, consider adjunctive olanzapine or lamotrigine, as both have evidence of anxiolytic efficacy. “Olanzapine does count as an antianxiety agent. Would you use it just as an antianxiety agent? Probably not in and of itself, but there’s other compelling reasons to use it,” he said. Before assuming you need to add another medication to address anxiety in a patient, “step back and think perhaps their anxiety symptoms will in themselves remit with olanzapine,” he said. Olanzapine can also be potentially used in cases where a patient has mania and anxiety to treat both conditions, he added.

Divalproex is another option for patients that has anxiolytic efficacy. “In the context of bipolar depression, divalproex does have antianxiety properties,” Dr. Goldberg said. Other anxiolytic options include lurasidone, cariprazine, quetiapine, and combination olanzapine–fluoxetine.
 

Bipolar disorder and ADHD

Among patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid adult ADHD, cognitive dysfunction inherent to bipolar disorder may be difficult to distinguish from signs of ADHD, Dr. Goldberg explained, with about 20% of people with bipolar I disorder and about 30% of people with bipolar II disorder have deficits of attentional processing, verbal memory, and executive functioning.

“Some researchers are very intrigued by the notion that cognitive problems and attentional problems aren’t necessarily a sign of [ADHD] comorbidities. They might be, but they may just be part of the endophenotype or the non-overt, genetically driven phenomenology that makes bipolar disorder so heterogeneous,” he said.

Patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid ADHD are more likely to have mania than depression, the condition is more common in men, and these patients are more likely to have substance use problems, increased risk of suicide attempts, problems in school, lower socioeconomic status, greater unemployment history, higher divorce rates, and low family history of bipolar disorder. Clinicians should check a patient’s history if they suspect comorbid adult ADHD in their patients with bipolar disorder, as there is a good chance evidence of ADHD will be present around the time of adolescence.

“You don’t wake up with [ADHD] at age 40, at least that’s not the prevailing perspective,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Focus on the ADHD symptoms that do not overlap with bipolar disorder, such as nondiscrete, chronic symptoms; lack of psychosis and suicidality; no evidence of grandiose beliefs; lack of hypersexuality; and depression that is not prominent. “You really need to go back in time and get some clarity as to the longitudinal course. If this was present earlier on and it persists into adulthood and it’s not better accounted for by either what we think of as the cognitive pervasive problems that emerge in bipolar disorder, or in relatives as a collaborator for attentional problems and bipolar disorder, we can then contemplate [whether] there’s a plausible basis for using a stimulant or [other ADHD] treatment,” he said.

In patients who are found to have adult comorbid ADHD and are nonmanic and nonpsychotic, stimulants do have an effect. Studies suggest that amphetamines such as adjunctive lisdexamfetamine added to a mood stabilizer show an improvement in ADHD symptoms after 4 weeks (Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013; 28[5]:421-7).

Adjunctive methylphenidate added to a mood stabilizer has also shown evidence of not causing treatment-emergent mania. “If you’re going to use methylphenidate, make sure it’s in the context of an antimanic mood stabilizer,” Dr. Goldberg said. In one study, methylphenidate without a mood stabilizer caused an increase in manic episodes within 3 months (Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 1;174:341-8).

“All may pose safe and effective evidence-based, albeit provisional, but evidence-based options to consider in targeting the attentional symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

He reported that he has been a consultant for BioXcel Therapeutics, Medscape/WebMD, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics. In addition, Dr. Goldberg is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Neurocrine, Otsuka, and Sunovion; and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When selecting pharmacotherapy for patients with bipolar disorder, clinical and prognostic correlates will ultimately influence what treatments make the most sense for a patient – but the process is a balancing act, according to Joseph F. Goldberg, MD.

“Everything we do in medicine in general, and psychiatry, and bipolar disorder in particular is a risk-benefit analysis,” Dr. Goldberg said at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and Global Academy for Medical Education. “Everything has its side effects. We’re always balancing risks and benefits.”

Patients with bipolar disorder often present with three common subtypes of the illness: Those who have associated psychosis, comorbid anxiety disorders, and comorbid ADHD. “These are three common presentations of the many, many kinds of presentations,” said Dr. Goldberg, clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

Bipolar disorder with associated psychosis

In the case of bipolar I disorder, more than 50% of manic episodes have some element of psychosis, with as many as 10% of patients showing signs of delusions 2 years after an episode, Dr. Goldberg explained. In these patients, mania relapse is predicted by mood-incongruent psychosis – a condition usually associated with schizophrenia, he said.

“If [they] have unusual beliefs and ideas, and they’re not consistent with a particular mood state, we sometimes clinically think this sounds more like a primary psychotic process,” he said. “Maybe, but not necessarily. So just because the patient may say, ‘The FBI is after me,’ or, ‘My thoughts are being read over the Internet,’ and they don’t connect that with a grandiose theme, it doesn’t negate a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.”

Psychotic mania is also associated with comorbid anxiety disorder. About half of patients with bipolar I disorder will also experience impairments of attention, executive functioning, and verbal memory separately from ADHD. “The cognitive symptoms of bipolar disorder that are part of what’s inherited doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s a clear greater degree of neuropsychological impairment in psychotic than nonpsychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Lithium has a poor response in the presence of psychosis in patients with bipolar disorder but performs better when the patient receives it alongside an antipsychotic. “Lithium does have value in psychotic mania,” Dr. Goldberg said. “Psychosis would be a negative prognostic sign, and certainly an indication for including an antipsychotic.”

In contrast to lithium, divalproex has shown evidence in reducing manic and psychotic symptoms similarly to haloperidol. “Divalproex may reduce mania symptoms, whether or not it’s helping psychosis. You’d think you have to get both reduced at the same time, but actually can see that even if there’s baseline psychosis, that does not diminish the chance of seeing a reduction in core mania symptoms,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Carbamazepine may also be advantageous to use over lithium when patients present with delusions, and a combination of carbamazepine and lithium may be comparable to haloperidol in combination with lithium when treating psychotic mania. “What we do know is, at least in some studies, there may be some greater value in treating psychotic mania with carbamazepine as compared to lithium, particularly when there are delusions present, more so than hallucinations or formal thought disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In patients with bipolar disorder and associated psychotic mania, clinicians should avoid dopamine agonists such as amphetamine and pramipexole, as well as ketamine. While some evidence has shown that second-generation antipsychotics work to treat bipolar depression, “there’s not really an evidence base to suggest that first-generation antipsychotics are protective against depression,” Dr. Goldberg said.
 

Bipolar disorder with anxiety

An association exists between comorbid anxiety disorders in patients with bipolar disorder and having a younger age of onset, in people who are less likely to recover from an initial mood episode, in people with poorer quality of life and role functioning, and in people who are less euthymic and more likely to attempt suicide, Dr. Goldberg said.

In addition, some patients may demonstrate symptoms of anxiety that aren’t part of the DSM-5 criteria for an anxiety disorder. Dr. Goldberg said he asks his patients to specify what they mean when they say they feel anxious.

“I always ask patients to tell me in very basic terms what [they] mean by anxiety. If they say, ‘I just I can’t sit still; I’m very fidgety,’ maybe that’s akathisia,” he said. “Or maybe if they say they’re very anxious, what they mean is they have so much energy they can’t contain it. This is mania or hypomania that they’re misconstruing as anxiety. We have to be very diligent and vigilant in clarifying the language here.”

To treat comorbid anxiety in patients with bipolar disorder, consider adjunctive olanzapine or lamotrigine, as both have evidence of anxiolytic efficacy. “Olanzapine does count as an antianxiety agent. Would you use it just as an antianxiety agent? Probably not in and of itself, but there’s other compelling reasons to use it,” he said. Before assuming you need to add another medication to address anxiety in a patient, “step back and think perhaps their anxiety symptoms will in themselves remit with olanzapine,” he said. Olanzapine can also be potentially used in cases where a patient has mania and anxiety to treat both conditions, he added.

Divalproex is another option for patients that has anxiolytic efficacy. “In the context of bipolar depression, divalproex does have antianxiety properties,” Dr. Goldberg said. Other anxiolytic options include lurasidone, cariprazine, quetiapine, and combination olanzapine–fluoxetine.
 

Bipolar disorder and ADHD

Among patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid adult ADHD, cognitive dysfunction inherent to bipolar disorder may be difficult to distinguish from signs of ADHD, Dr. Goldberg explained, with about 20% of people with bipolar I disorder and about 30% of people with bipolar II disorder have deficits of attentional processing, verbal memory, and executive functioning.

“Some researchers are very intrigued by the notion that cognitive problems and attentional problems aren’t necessarily a sign of [ADHD] comorbidities. They might be, but they may just be part of the endophenotype or the non-overt, genetically driven phenomenology that makes bipolar disorder so heterogeneous,” he said.

Patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid ADHD are more likely to have mania than depression, the condition is more common in men, and these patients are more likely to have substance use problems, increased risk of suicide attempts, problems in school, lower socioeconomic status, greater unemployment history, higher divorce rates, and low family history of bipolar disorder. Clinicians should check a patient’s history if they suspect comorbid adult ADHD in their patients with bipolar disorder, as there is a good chance evidence of ADHD will be present around the time of adolescence.

“You don’t wake up with [ADHD] at age 40, at least that’s not the prevailing perspective,” Dr. Goldberg said.

Focus on the ADHD symptoms that do not overlap with bipolar disorder, such as nondiscrete, chronic symptoms; lack of psychosis and suicidality; no evidence of grandiose beliefs; lack of hypersexuality; and depression that is not prominent. “You really need to go back in time and get some clarity as to the longitudinal course. If this was present earlier on and it persists into adulthood and it’s not better accounted for by either what we think of as the cognitive pervasive problems that emerge in bipolar disorder, or in relatives as a collaborator for attentional problems and bipolar disorder, we can then contemplate [whether] there’s a plausible basis for using a stimulant or [other ADHD] treatment,” he said.

In patients who are found to have adult comorbid ADHD and are nonmanic and nonpsychotic, stimulants do have an effect. Studies suggest that amphetamines such as adjunctive lisdexamfetamine added to a mood stabilizer show an improvement in ADHD symptoms after 4 weeks (Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013; 28[5]:421-7).

Adjunctive methylphenidate added to a mood stabilizer has also shown evidence of not causing treatment-emergent mania. “If you’re going to use methylphenidate, make sure it’s in the context of an antimanic mood stabilizer,” Dr. Goldberg said. In one study, methylphenidate without a mood stabilizer caused an increase in manic episodes within 3 months (Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Apr 1;174:341-8).

“All may pose safe and effective evidence-based, albeit provisional, but evidence-based options to consider in targeting the attentional symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder,” Dr. Goldberg said.

He reported that he has been a consultant for BioXcel Therapeutics, Medscape/WebMD, Otsuka, and Sage Therapeutics. In addition, Dr. Goldberg is on the speakers bureau for Allergan, Neurocrine, Otsuka, and Sunovion; and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.

Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.

The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Drugs alone not enough

It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).

The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).

Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).

Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).

Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.

For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.

The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.

“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.

“When the goals center on prevention of recurrences, patients should be engaged in family or group psychoeducation with guided skills training and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.

“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
 

A call to action

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”

The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.

The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.

Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”

The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One of the hottest topics now in psychiatry is the possibility of repurposing long-established cardiovascular medications for treatment of patients with serious mental illness, Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Courtesy Dr. Livia De Picker

The appeal is multifold. A huge unmet need exists in psychiatry for new and better treatments with novel mechanisms of action. Many guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications have a long track record, including a well-established safety profile with no surprises, and are available in generic versions. They can be developed for a new indication at minimal cost, noted Dr. De Picker, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).

The idea of psychiatric repurposing of drugs originally developed for nonpsychiatric indications is nothing new, she added. Examples include lithium for gout, valproate for epilepsy, and ketamine for anesthesiology.

One hitch in efforts to repurpose cardiovascular medications is that, when psychiatric patients have been included in randomized trials of the drugs’ cardiovascular effects, the psychiatric outcomes often went untallied.

Indeed, the only high-quality randomized trial evidence of psychiatric benefits for any class of cardiovascular medications is for statins, where a modest-sized meta-analysis of six placebo-controlled trials in 339 patients with schizophrenia showed the lipid-lowering agents had benefit for both positive and negative symptoms (Psychiatry Res. 2018 Apr;262:84-93). But that’s not a body of data of sufficient size to be definitive, in Dr. De Picker’s view.

Much of the recent enthusiasm for exploring the potential of cardiovascular drugs for psychiatric conditions comes from hypothesis-generating big data analyses drawn from Scandinavian national patient registries. Danish investigators scrutinized all 1.6 million Danes exposed to six classes of drugs of interest during 2005-2015 and determined that those on long-term statins, low-dose aspirin, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or allopurinol were associated with a decreased rate of new-onset depression, while high-dose aspirin and non-aspirin NSAIDs were associated with an increased rate, compared with a 30% random sample of the country’s population (Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019 Jan;1391:68-77).

Similarly, the Danish group found that continued use of statins, angiotensin agents, or low-dose aspirin was associated with a decreased rate of new-onset bipolar disorder, while high-dose aspirin and other NSAIDs were linked to increased risk (Bipolar Disord. 2019 Aug;[15]:410-8). What these agents have in common, the investigators observed, is that they act on inflammation and potentially on the stress response system.

Meanwhile, Swedish investigators examined the course of 142,691 Swedes with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or nonaffective psychosis during 2005-2016. They determined that, during periods when those individuals were on a statin, calcium channel blocker, or metformin, they had reduced rates of psychiatric hospitalization and self-harm (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Apr 1;76[4]:382-90).

Scottish researchers analyzed the health records of 144,066 patients placed on monotherapy for hypertension and determined that the lowest risk for hospitalization for a mood disorder during follow-up was in those prescribed an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The risk was significantly higher in patients on a beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker, and intermediate in those on a thiazide diuretic (Hypertension. 2016 Nov;68[5:1132-8).

“Obviously, this is all at a very macro scale and we have no idea whatsoever what this means for individual patients, number needed to treat, or which type of patients would benefit, but it does provide us with some guidance for future research,” according to Dr. De Picker.

In the meantime, while physicians await definitive evidence of any impact of cardiovascular drugs might have on psychiatric outcomes, abundant data exist underscoring what she called “shockingly high levels” of inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with serious mental illness. That problem needs to be addressed, and Dr. De Picker offered her personal recommendations for doing so in a manner consistent with the evidence to date suggestive of potential mental health benefits of some cardiovascular medications.

She advised that, for treatment of hypertension in patients with bipolar disorder or major depression, an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is preferred as first-line. There is some evidence to suggest lipophilic beta-blockers, which cross the blood-brain barrier, improve anxiety symptoms and panic attacks, and prevent memory consolidation in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. But the Scottish data suggest that they may worsen mood disorders.

“I would be careful in using beta-blockers as first-line treatment for hypertension. They’re not in the guidelines for anxiety disorders. British guidelines recommend them to prevent memory consolidation in PTSD, but do not use them as first-line in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder,” she said. As for calcium channel blockers, the jury is still out, with mixed and inconsistent evidence to date as to the impact of this drug class on mental illness outcomes.

She recommended a very low threshold for prescribing statin therapy in patients with serious mental illness in light of the superb risk/benefit ratio for this drug class. She makes sure a statin is onboard in her patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder who are over age 60. In her younger patients, she turns for guidance to an online calculator of an individual’s 10-year risk of a first acute MI or stroke.

Metformin has been shown to be beneficial for addressing the weight gain and other adverse metabolic effects caused by antipsychotic agents, and there is some preliminary evidence of improved psychiatric outcomes in patients with serious mental illness.

Christian Otte, MD, who also spoke at the session, noted that not only do emerging data point to the possibility that cardiovascular drugs might have benefit in terms of psychiatric outcomes, there is also some evidence, albeit mixed, that the converse is true: that is, psychiatric drugs may have cardiovascular benefits. He pointed to a South Korean trial in which 300 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and major depression were randomized to 24 weeks of escitalopram or placebo. At median 8.1 years of follow-up, the group that received the SSRI had a 31% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or percutaneous coronary intervention (JAMA. 2018 Jul 24; 320[4]:350–7).

“Potentially independent of their antidepressant effects, some SSRIs’ antiplatelet effects could be beneficial for patients with coronary heart disease, although the jury is still open regarding this question, with evidence in both directions,” said Dr. Otte, professor of psychiatry at Charite University Medical Center in Berlin.

Dr. De Picker offered an example as well: Finnish psychiatrists recently reported that cardiovascular mortality was reduced by an adjusted 38% during periods when 62,250 Finnish schizophrenia patients were on antipsychotic agents, compared with periods of nonuse of the drugs in a national study with a median 14.1 years of follow-up (World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19[1]:61-8).

“What they discovered – and this is quite contrary to what we are used to hearing about antipsychotic medication and cardiovascular risk – is that while the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations was not different in periods with or without antipsychotic use, the cardiovascular mortality was quite strikingly reduced when patients were on antipsychotic medication,” she said.

Asked by an audience member whether she personally prescribes metformin, Dr. De Picker replied: “Well, yes, why not? One of the very nice things about metformin is that it is actually a very safe drug, even in the hands of nonspecialists.

“I understand that maybe psychiatrists may not feel very comfortable in starting patients on metformin due to a lack of experience. But there are really only two things you need to take into account. About one-quarter of patients will experience GI side effects – nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort – and this can be reduced by gradually uptitrating the dose, dosing at mealtime, and using an extended-release formulation. And the second thing is that metformin can impair vitamin B₁₂ absorption, so I think, especially in psychiatric patients, it would be good to do an annual measurement of vitamin B₁₂ level and, if necessary, administer intramuscular supplements,” Dr. De Picker said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: De Picker L. ECNP 2020. Session EDU.05.

One of the hottest topics now in psychiatry is the possibility of repurposing long-established cardiovascular medications for treatment of patients with serious mental illness, Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Courtesy Dr. Livia De Picker

The appeal is multifold. A huge unmet need exists in psychiatry for new and better treatments with novel mechanisms of action. Many guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications have a long track record, including a well-established safety profile with no surprises, and are available in generic versions. They can be developed for a new indication at minimal cost, noted Dr. De Picker, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).

The idea of psychiatric repurposing of drugs originally developed for nonpsychiatric indications is nothing new, she added. Examples include lithium for gout, valproate for epilepsy, and ketamine for anesthesiology.

One hitch in efforts to repurpose cardiovascular medications is that, when psychiatric patients have been included in randomized trials of the drugs’ cardiovascular effects, the psychiatric outcomes often went untallied.

Indeed, the only high-quality randomized trial evidence of psychiatric benefits for any class of cardiovascular medications is for statins, where a modest-sized meta-analysis of six placebo-controlled trials in 339 patients with schizophrenia showed the lipid-lowering agents had benefit for both positive and negative symptoms (Psychiatry Res. 2018 Apr;262:84-93). But that’s not a body of data of sufficient size to be definitive, in Dr. De Picker’s view.

Much of the recent enthusiasm for exploring the potential of cardiovascular drugs for psychiatric conditions comes from hypothesis-generating big data analyses drawn from Scandinavian national patient registries. Danish investigators scrutinized all 1.6 million Danes exposed to six classes of drugs of interest during 2005-2015 and determined that those on long-term statins, low-dose aspirin, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or allopurinol were associated with a decreased rate of new-onset depression, while high-dose aspirin and non-aspirin NSAIDs were associated with an increased rate, compared with a 30% random sample of the country’s population (Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019 Jan;1391:68-77).

Similarly, the Danish group found that continued use of statins, angiotensin agents, or low-dose aspirin was associated with a decreased rate of new-onset bipolar disorder, while high-dose aspirin and other NSAIDs were linked to increased risk (Bipolar Disord. 2019 Aug;[15]:410-8). What these agents have in common, the investigators observed, is that they act on inflammation and potentially on the stress response system.

Meanwhile, Swedish investigators examined the course of 142,691 Swedes with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or nonaffective psychosis during 2005-2016. They determined that, during periods when those individuals were on a statin, calcium channel blocker, or metformin, they had reduced rates of psychiatric hospitalization and self-harm (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Apr 1;76[4]:382-90).

Scottish researchers analyzed the health records of 144,066 patients placed on monotherapy for hypertension and determined that the lowest risk for hospitalization for a mood disorder during follow-up was in those prescribed an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The risk was significantly higher in patients on a beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker, and intermediate in those on a thiazide diuretic (Hypertension. 2016 Nov;68[5:1132-8).

“Obviously, this is all at a very macro scale and we have no idea whatsoever what this means for individual patients, number needed to treat, or which type of patients would benefit, but it does provide us with some guidance for future research,” according to Dr. De Picker.

In the meantime, while physicians await definitive evidence of any impact of cardiovascular drugs might have on psychiatric outcomes, abundant data exist underscoring what she called “shockingly high levels” of inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with serious mental illness. That problem needs to be addressed, and Dr. De Picker offered her personal recommendations for doing so in a manner consistent with the evidence to date suggestive of potential mental health benefits of some cardiovascular medications.

She advised that, for treatment of hypertension in patients with bipolar disorder or major depression, an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is preferred as first-line. There is some evidence to suggest lipophilic beta-blockers, which cross the blood-brain barrier, improve anxiety symptoms and panic attacks, and prevent memory consolidation in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. But the Scottish data suggest that they may worsen mood disorders.

“I would be careful in using beta-blockers as first-line treatment for hypertension. They’re not in the guidelines for anxiety disorders. British guidelines recommend them to prevent memory consolidation in PTSD, but do not use them as first-line in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder,” she said. As for calcium channel blockers, the jury is still out, with mixed and inconsistent evidence to date as to the impact of this drug class on mental illness outcomes.

She recommended a very low threshold for prescribing statin therapy in patients with serious mental illness in light of the superb risk/benefit ratio for this drug class. She makes sure a statin is onboard in her patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder who are over age 60. In her younger patients, she turns for guidance to an online calculator of an individual’s 10-year risk of a first acute MI or stroke.

Metformin has been shown to be beneficial for addressing the weight gain and other adverse metabolic effects caused by antipsychotic agents, and there is some preliminary evidence of improved psychiatric outcomes in patients with serious mental illness.

Christian Otte, MD, who also spoke at the session, noted that not only do emerging data point to the possibility that cardiovascular drugs might have benefit in terms of psychiatric outcomes, there is also some evidence, albeit mixed, that the converse is true: that is, psychiatric drugs may have cardiovascular benefits. He pointed to a South Korean trial in which 300 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and major depression were randomized to 24 weeks of escitalopram or placebo. At median 8.1 years of follow-up, the group that received the SSRI had a 31% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or percutaneous coronary intervention (JAMA. 2018 Jul 24; 320[4]:350–7).

“Potentially independent of their antidepressant effects, some SSRIs’ antiplatelet effects could be beneficial for patients with coronary heart disease, although the jury is still open regarding this question, with evidence in both directions,” said Dr. Otte, professor of psychiatry at Charite University Medical Center in Berlin.

Dr. De Picker offered an example as well: Finnish psychiatrists recently reported that cardiovascular mortality was reduced by an adjusted 38% during periods when 62,250 Finnish schizophrenia patients were on antipsychotic agents, compared with periods of nonuse of the drugs in a national study with a median 14.1 years of follow-up (World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19[1]:61-8).

“What they discovered – and this is quite contrary to what we are used to hearing about antipsychotic medication and cardiovascular risk – is that while the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations was not different in periods with or without antipsychotic use, the cardiovascular mortality was quite strikingly reduced when patients were on antipsychotic medication,” she said.

Asked by an audience member whether she personally prescribes metformin, Dr. De Picker replied: “Well, yes, why not? One of the very nice things about metformin is that it is actually a very safe drug, even in the hands of nonspecialists.

“I understand that maybe psychiatrists may not feel very comfortable in starting patients on metformin due to a lack of experience. But there are really only two things you need to take into account. About one-quarter of patients will experience GI side effects – nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort – and this can be reduced by gradually uptitrating the dose, dosing at mealtime, and using an extended-release formulation. And the second thing is that metformin can impair vitamin B₁₂ absorption, so I think, especially in psychiatric patients, it would be good to do an annual measurement of vitamin B₁₂ level and, if necessary, administer intramuscular supplements,” Dr. De Picker said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: De Picker L. ECNP 2020. Session EDU.05.

One of the hottest topics now in psychiatry is the possibility of repurposing long-established cardiovascular medications for treatment of patients with serious mental illness, Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Courtesy Dr. Livia De Picker

The appeal is multifold. A huge unmet need exists in psychiatry for new and better treatments with novel mechanisms of action. Many guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications have a long track record, including a well-established safety profile with no surprises, and are available in generic versions. They can be developed for a new indication at minimal cost, noted Dr. De Picker, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).

The idea of psychiatric repurposing of drugs originally developed for nonpsychiatric indications is nothing new, she added. Examples include lithium for gout, valproate for epilepsy, and ketamine for anesthesiology.

One hitch in efforts to repurpose cardiovascular medications is that, when psychiatric patients have been included in randomized trials of the drugs’ cardiovascular effects, the psychiatric outcomes often went untallied.

Indeed, the only high-quality randomized trial evidence of psychiatric benefits for any class of cardiovascular medications is for statins, where a modest-sized meta-analysis of six placebo-controlled trials in 339 patients with schizophrenia showed the lipid-lowering agents had benefit for both positive and negative symptoms (Psychiatry Res. 2018 Apr;262:84-93). But that’s not a body of data of sufficient size to be definitive, in Dr. De Picker’s view.

Much of the recent enthusiasm for exploring the potential of cardiovascular drugs for psychiatric conditions comes from hypothesis-generating big data analyses drawn from Scandinavian national patient registries. Danish investigators scrutinized all 1.6 million Danes exposed to six classes of drugs of interest during 2005-2015 and determined that those on long-term statins, low-dose aspirin, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or allopurinol were associated with a decreased rate of new-onset depression, while high-dose aspirin and non-aspirin NSAIDs were associated with an increased rate, compared with a 30% random sample of the country’s population (Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2019 Jan;1391:68-77).

Similarly, the Danish group found that continued use of statins, angiotensin agents, or low-dose aspirin was associated with a decreased rate of new-onset bipolar disorder, while high-dose aspirin and other NSAIDs were linked to increased risk (Bipolar Disord. 2019 Aug;[15]:410-8). What these agents have in common, the investigators observed, is that they act on inflammation and potentially on the stress response system.

Meanwhile, Swedish investigators examined the course of 142,691 Swedes with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or nonaffective psychosis during 2005-2016. They determined that, during periods when those individuals were on a statin, calcium channel blocker, or metformin, they had reduced rates of psychiatric hospitalization and self-harm (JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Apr 1;76[4]:382-90).

Scottish researchers analyzed the health records of 144,066 patients placed on monotherapy for hypertension and determined that the lowest risk for hospitalization for a mood disorder during follow-up was in those prescribed an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The risk was significantly higher in patients on a beta-blocker or calcium channel blocker, and intermediate in those on a thiazide diuretic (Hypertension. 2016 Nov;68[5:1132-8).

“Obviously, this is all at a very macro scale and we have no idea whatsoever what this means for individual patients, number needed to treat, or which type of patients would benefit, but it does provide us with some guidance for future research,” according to Dr. De Picker.

In the meantime, while physicians await definitive evidence of any impact of cardiovascular drugs might have on psychiatric outcomes, abundant data exist underscoring what she called “shockingly high levels” of inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with serious mental illness. That problem needs to be addressed, and Dr. De Picker offered her personal recommendations for doing so in a manner consistent with the evidence to date suggestive of potential mental health benefits of some cardiovascular medications.

She advised that, for treatment of hypertension in patients with bipolar disorder or major depression, an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is preferred as first-line. There is some evidence to suggest lipophilic beta-blockers, which cross the blood-brain barrier, improve anxiety symptoms and panic attacks, and prevent memory consolidation in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. But the Scottish data suggest that they may worsen mood disorders.

“I would be careful in using beta-blockers as first-line treatment for hypertension. They’re not in the guidelines for anxiety disorders. British guidelines recommend them to prevent memory consolidation in PTSD, but do not use them as first-line in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder,” she said. As for calcium channel blockers, the jury is still out, with mixed and inconsistent evidence to date as to the impact of this drug class on mental illness outcomes.

She recommended a very low threshold for prescribing statin therapy in patients with serious mental illness in light of the superb risk/benefit ratio for this drug class. She makes sure a statin is onboard in her patients with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder who are over age 60. In her younger patients, she turns for guidance to an online calculator of an individual’s 10-year risk of a first acute MI or stroke.

Metformin has been shown to be beneficial for addressing the weight gain and other adverse metabolic effects caused by antipsychotic agents, and there is some preliminary evidence of improved psychiatric outcomes in patients with serious mental illness.

Christian Otte, MD, who also spoke at the session, noted that not only do emerging data point to the possibility that cardiovascular drugs might have benefit in terms of psychiatric outcomes, there is also some evidence, albeit mixed, that the converse is true: that is, psychiatric drugs may have cardiovascular benefits. He pointed to a South Korean trial in which 300 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome and major depression were randomized to 24 weeks of escitalopram or placebo. At median 8.1 years of follow-up, the group that received the SSRI had a 31% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, acute MI, or percutaneous coronary intervention (JAMA. 2018 Jul 24; 320[4]:350–7).

“Potentially independent of their antidepressant effects, some SSRIs’ antiplatelet effects could be beneficial for patients with coronary heart disease, although the jury is still open regarding this question, with evidence in both directions,” said Dr. Otte, professor of psychiatry at Charite University Medical Center in Berlin.

Dr. De Picker offered an example as well: Finnish psychiatrists recently reported that cardiovascular mortality was reduced by an adjusted 38% during periods when 62,250 Finnish schizophrenia patients were on antipsychotic agents, compared with periods of nonuse of the drugs in a national study with a median 14.1 years of follow-up (World Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;19[1]:61-8).

“What they discovered – and this is quite contrary to what we are used to hearing about antipsychotic medication and cardiovascular risk – is that while the number of cardiovascular hospitalizations was not different in periods with or without antipsychotic use, the cardiovascular mortality was quite strikingly reduced when patients were on antipsychotic medication,” she said.

Asked by an audience member whether she personally prescribes metformin, Dr. De Picker replied: “Well, yes, why not? One of the very nice things about metformin is that it is actually a very safe drug, even in the hands of nonspecialists.

“I understand that maybe psychiatrists may not feel very comfortable in starting patients on metformin due to a lack of experience. But there are really only two things you need to take into account. About one-quarter of patients will experience GI side effects – nausea, vomiting, abdominal discomfort – and this can be reduced by gradually uptitrating the dose, dosing at mealtime, and using an extended-release formulation. And the second thing is that metformin can impair vitamin B₁₂ absorption, so I think, especially in psychiatric patients, it would be good to do an annual measurement of vitamin B₁₂ level and, if necessary, administer intramuscular supplements,” Dr. De Picker said.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

[email protected]

SOURCE: De Picker L. ECNP 2020. Session EDU.05.

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.

A psychiatric diagnosis for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is linked to a significantly increased risk for death, new research shows.

Investigators found that patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder had a 50% increased risk for a COVID-related death in comparison with COVID-19 patients who had not received a psychiatric diagnosis.

“Pay attention and potentially address/treat a prior psychiatric diagnosis if a patient is hospitalized for COVID-19, as this risk factor can impact the patient’s outcome – death – while in the hospital,” lead investigator Luming Li, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry and associate medical director of quality improvement, Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 30 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Negative impact

“We were interested to learn more about the impact of psychiatric diagnoses on COVID-19 mortality, as prior large cohort studies included neurological and other medical conditions but did not assess for a priori psychiatric diagnoses,” said Dr. Li.

“We know from the literature that prior psychiatric diagnoses can have a negative impact on the outcomes of medical conditions, and therefore we tested our hypothesis on a cohort of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 1,685 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Feb. 15 and April 25, 2020, and whose cases were followed to May 27, 2020. The patients (mean age, 65.2 years; 52.6% men) were drawn from the Yale New Haven Health System.

The median follow-up period was 8 days (interquartile range, 4-16 days) .

Of these patients, 28% had received a psychiatric diagnosis prior to hospitalization. The patients with psychiatric disorders were significantly older and were more likely to be women, White, non-Hispanic, and to have medical comorbidities (i.e., cancer, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, MI, and/or HIV).

Psychiatric diagnoses were defined in accordance with ICD codes that included mental and behavioral health, Alzheimer’s disease, and self-injury.
 

Vulnerability to stress

In the unadjusted model, the risk for COVID-19–related hospital death was greater for those who had received any psychiatric diagnosis, compared with those had not (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.8-2.9; P < .001).

In the adjusted model that controlled for demographic characteristics, other medical comorbidities, and hospital location, the mortality risk somewhat decreased but still remained significantly higher (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P = .003).

Dr. Li noted a number of factors that might account for the higher mortality rate among psychiatric patients who had COVID-19 in comparison with COVD-19 patients who did not have a psychiatric disorder. These included “potential inflammatory and stress responses that the body experiences related to prior psychiatric conditions,” she said.

Having been previously diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder may also “reflect existing neurochemical differences, compared to those who do not have a prior psychiatric diagnosis, [and] these differences may make the population with the prior psychiatric diagnosis more vulnerable to respond to an acute stressor such as COVID-19,” she said.
 

Quality care

Harold Pincus, MD, professor and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, said it “adds to the fairly well-known and well-established phenomenon that people with mental illnesses have a high risk of all sorts of morbidity and mortality for non–mental health conditions.”

The researchers “adjusted for various expected [mortality] risks that would be independent of the presence of COVID-19,” so “there was something else going on associated with mortality,” said Dr. Pincus, who is also codirector of the Irving Institute for Clinical and Translation Research. He was not involved with the study.

Beyond the possibility of “some basic immunologic process affected by the presence of a mental disorder,” it is possible that the vulnerability is “related to access to quality care for the comorbid general condition that is not being effectively treated,” he said.

“The take-home message is that people with mental disorders are at higher risk for death, and we need to make sure that, irrespective of COVID-19, they get adequate preventive and chronic-disease care, which would be the most effective way to intervene and protect the impact of a serious disease like COVID-19,” he noted. This would include being appropriately vaccinated and receiving preventive healthcare to reduce smoking and encourage weight loss.

No source of funding for the study was provided. Dr. Li reported receiving grants from a Health and Aging Policy Fellowship during the conduct of the study. Dr. Pincus reported no relevant financial relationships.