Depression

TOPLINE:

Adults who take part in group-based, teacher-led mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) have reduced psychological distress.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests the effect of MBPs, which combine elements of meditation, body awareness, and modern psychology, vary as a function of individual, participant-level differences.

After a literature search, researchers selected 13 trials of in-person, teacher-led group-based MBPs that had a passive control group such as no intervention, a waitlist, or treatment-as-usual, in a total of 2,371 community adults (median age, 34 years; 71% female) who reported psychological distress levels.

Researchers conducted a systematic review and individual-participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, which allowed them to explore how intervention effects vary as a function of individual differences.

The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress, which includes anxiety and depression, measured between 1 and 6 months after program completion using psychometrically valid questionnaires.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The trials were conducted across eight countries, had a cohort size ranging from 44 to 670 participants, and represented diverse populations including university students, law enforcement officers, and health care professionals.

Compared with passive control groups, MBPs reduced distress (standardized mean difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –0.41 to –0.24; P < .001; 95% prediction interval, –0.41 to –0.24), with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity.

Results were similar for psychological distress measured less than a month after completing the program and beyond 6 months.

There was no clear indication that baseline distress, gender, age, education level, or dispositional mindfulness (a construct reflecting an individual’s focus and quality of attention) modified the effect of MBPs on the primary outcome.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “encourage implementation of teacher-led MBPs for adults in nonclinical settings,” said the authors, noting that while it was difficult to ascertain clinical significance of the results because different instruments were combined, the effect size was within the range of being minimally important.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julieta Galante, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues. It was published online July 10 in Nature Mental Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are limited to voluntary MBPs and don’t extend to self-guided MBPs such as those delivered through smartphone applications. Individuals with less than 12 years of education, men, and those over age 70 years were underrepresented in the dataset. The analysis was unable to consider certain effect modifiers such as participant expectations and beliefs, and personality and cognitive factors. There is risk of bias regarding the lack of blinding and self-reported outcomes, and psychological distress is an inherently subjective outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galante has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults who take part in group-based, teacher-led mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) have reduced psychological distress.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests the effect of MBPs, which combine elements of meditation, body awareness, and modern psychology, vary as a function of individual, participant-level differences.

After a literature search, researchers selected 13 trials of in-person, teacher-led group-based MBPs that had a passive control group such as no intervention, a waitlist, or treatment-as-usual, in a total of 2,371 community adults (median age, 34 years; 71% female) who reported psychological distress levels.

Researchers conducted a systematic review and individual-participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, which allowed them to explore how intervention effects vary as a function of individual differences.

The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress, which includes anxiety and depression, measured between 1 and 6 months after program completion using psychometrically valid questionnaires.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The trials were conducted across eight countries, had a cohort size ranging from 44 to 670 participants, and represented diverse populations including university students, law enforcement officers, and health care professionals.

Compared with passive control groups, MBPs reduced distress (standardized mean difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –0.41 to –0.24; P < .001; 95% prediction interval, –0.41 to –0.24), with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity.

Results were similar for psychological distress measured less than a month after completing the program and beyond 6 months.

There was no clear indication that baseline distress, gender, age, education level, or dispositional mindfulness (a construct reflecting an individual’s focus and quality of attention) modified the effect of MBPs on the primary outcome.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “encourage implementation of teacher-led MBPs for adults in nonclinical settings,” said the authors, noting that while it was difficult to ascertain clinical significance of the results because different instruments were combined, the effect size was within the range of being minimally important.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julieta Galante, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues. It was published online July 10 in Nature Mental Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are limited to voluntary MBPs and don’t extend to self-guided MBPs such as those delivered through smartphone applications. Individuals with less than 12 years of education, men, and those over age 70 years were underrepresented in the dataset. The analysis was unable to consider certain effect modifiers such as participant expectations and beliefs, and personality and cognitive factors. There is risk of bias regarding the lack of blinding and self-reported outcomes, and psychological distress is an inherently subjective outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galante has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults who take part in group-based, teacher-led mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) have reduced psychological distress.

METHODOLOGY:

Evidence suggests the effect of MBPs, which combine elements of meditation, body awareness, and modern psychology, vary as a function of individual, participant-level differences.

After a literature search, researchers selected 13 trials of in-person, teacher-led group-based MBPs that had a passive control group such as no intervention, a waitlist, or treatment-as-usual, in a total of 2,371 community adults (median age, 34 years; 71% female) who reported psychological distress levels.

Researchers conducted a systematic review and individual-participant data (IPD) meta-analysis, which allowed them to explore how intervention effects vary as a function of individual differences.

The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress, which includes anxiety and depression, measured between 1 and 6 months after program completion using psychometrically valid questionnaires.
 

TAKEAWAY:

The trials were conducted across eight countries, had a cohort size ranging from 44 to 670 participants, and represented diverse populations including university students, law enforcement officers, and health care professionals.

Compared with passive control groups, MBPs reduced distress (standardized mean difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –0.41 to –0.24; P < .001; 95% prediction interval, –0.41 to –0.24), with no evidence of statistical heterogeneity.

Results were similar for psychological distress measured less than a month after completing the program and beyond 6 months.

There was no clear indication that baseline distress, gender, age, education level, or dispositional mindfulness (a construct reflecting an individual’s focus and quality of attention) modified the effect of MBPs on the primary outcome.
 

IN PRACTICE:

The results “encourage implementation of teacher-led MBPs for adults in nonclinical settings,” said the authors, noting that while it was difficult to ascertain clinical significance of the results because different instruments were combined, the effect size was within the range of being minimally important.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Julieta Galante, PhD, department of psychiatry, University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues. It was published online July 10 in Nature Mental Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings are limited to voluntary MBPs and don’t extend to self-guided MBPs such as those delivered through smartphone applications. Individuals with less than 12 years of education, men, and those over age 70 years were underrepresented in the dataset. The analysis was unable to consider certain effect modifiers such as participant expectations and beliefs, and personality and cognitive factors. There is risk of bias regarding the lack of blinding and self-reported outcomes, and psychological distress is an inherently subjective outcome.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Galante has no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides no additional benefit when added to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of a triple-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial show.

The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.

“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.

The study was published online in The Lancet.

Rigorous trial

Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.

Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.

The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.

Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.

In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).

There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.

There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.

Still reason for optimism

These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.

Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.

tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.

Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”

And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.

“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.

“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.

“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.

Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides no additional benefit when added to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of a triple-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial show.

The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.

“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.

The study was published online in The Lancet.

Rigorous trial

Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.

Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.

The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.

Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.

In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).

There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.

There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.

Still reason for optimism

These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.

Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.

tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.

Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”

And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.

“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.

“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.

“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.

Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) provides no additional benefit when added to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of a triple-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial show.

The study showed no difference in mean improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 6 weeks between active and sham tDCS.

“Our trial does not support the efficacy of tDCS as an additional treatment to SSRIs in adults with MDD,” the investigators, led by Frank Padberg, MD, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, write.

The study was published online in The Lancet.

Rigorous trial

Because it neurophysiologically modulates prefrontal cortex connectivity, tDCS has been proposed as a potential treatment for MDD.

Yet evidence for its efficacy has been inconsistent, and there is a scarcity of multicenter trial data, the researchers note.

The DepressionDC trial assessed the efficacy of tDCS in combination with SSRIs in 160 adults with MDD. Participants had a score of at least 15 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (21-item version); their conditions had not responded to at least one antidepressant trial in their current depressive episode; and they had received treatment with an SSRI at a stable dose for at least 4 weeks. The SSRI was continued at the same dose during stimulation.

Eighty-three patients were allocated to undergo 30 min of 2-mA bifrontal tDCS every weekday for 4 weeks, then two tDCS sessions per week for 2 weeks; 77 patients were assigned to receive matching sham stimulation. Randomization was stratified by baseline MADRS score of less than 31 or 31 and higher.

In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no between-group difference in mean improvement on the MADRS at week 6 (–8.2 with active and –8.0 with sham tDCS; difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, –2.4 to 2.9).

There was also no significant difference for all secondary outcomes, including response and remission rates, patient-reported depression, and functioning, as well as at 18-week and 30-week follow-up visits.

There were significantly more mild adverse events reported in the active tDCS group than in the sham group (60% vs. 43%; P = .028). The most common adverse events were headaches, local skin reactions, and sleep-related problems.

Still reason for optimism

These findings call into question the efficacy of tDCS as add-on therapy to SSRI treatment for individuals with MDD and highlight the need for supportive evidence from multicenter studies, the investigators write.

Yet Dr. Padberg said it’s not the end of the road for tDCS for depression.

tDCS exerts a “rather subtle and nonfocal effect on neuronal activity. Thus, tDCS may need to be combined with specific behavioral or cognitive interventions which functionally involve the brain region where tDCS is targeted at,” he said.

Another “promising avenue” is personalization of tDCS by “individual MRI-based computational modeling of tDCS-induced electric fields,” he noted.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary note that the DepressionDC trial was “carefully designed” and “well executed.”

And while the results did not show the superiority of active tDCS over sham stimulation as an additional treatment to SSRI therapy, “clinicians and researchers should not disregard this treatment for people with MDD,” write Daphne Voineskos, MD, PhD, and Daniel Blumberger, MD, with the University of Toronto.

“Specifically, further exploration of placebo response in less heterogeneous MDD samples and the evaluation of tDCS as an earlier treatment option for people with MDD are important areas of future research,” they suggest.

“Moreover, elucidating the effects of interindividual anatomical variability on electrical current distribution might lead to tDCS protocols that individualize treatment to optimize therapeutic effects as opposed to a so-called one-size-fits-all approach.

“Overall, there is reason for optimism about the potential to individualize tDCS and deliver it outside of the clinical setting,” Dr. Voineskos and Dr. Blumberger conclude.

Funding for the study was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Several authors disclosed relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of disclosures of authors and comment writers is available with the original article.

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

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

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

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

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

As children learn to walk and talk, their brains are remarkably open to new information. They gather knowledge from parents, their environment, and trial and error. Teenagers do too, as they adopt the emotional and intellectual skills needed to become adults. 

In adulthood, however, our minds become relatively locked, closed to new information. This saves energy and lets us navigate the world more efficiently. But that also makes it harder to adapt, learn a new language or skill, or recover from psychological or physical trauma. For those who’ve dealt with abuse, abandonment, or physical violence, that lockdown can lead to a lifetime of suffering, substance abuse, and other maladaptive behaviors.

But recent research offers promise that psychedelic drugs may “reopen” the brain to help it recover from trauma. The study, published in Nature, reflects a renaissance of using and researching psychedelics to treat a range of mental health conditions. 

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore were investigating the drugs’ effects on “critical periods” for social learning, times when the brain is more open to new information that diminish as we age. Success in mice suggests that psychedelics can start a fresh period of learning.

If the finding bears out in future studies, the therapeutic horizon for psychedelics could expand to other opportunities to retrain the brain, including recovery from a stroke, traumatic brain injury, and even hearing loss and paralysis. 

The stakes are big, and the future is promising, said lead researcher Gul Dolen, MD, PhD, an associate professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University. Psychedelics “could be the key that unlocks the brain and helps people after one dose, rather than subjecting them to a lifetime of drugs.” 
 

The psychedelic advantage

Dr. Dolen, who launched her career in addiction studies, has long been fascinated by critical periods and their influence on adult behavior. 

“There have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for work on critical periods,” she said. One study in mice, for instance, identified 15 periods of social learning that define their behaviors for a lifetime. 

Prior research has found that MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy) can help soldiers reconsider traumatic events on the battlefield, learn from them, and move on. That phenomenon had all the earmarks of a critical period for social learning. Perhaps, Dr. Dolen said, psychedelics could open a critical period in a soldier’s life – or a drug-addicted person’s or rape survivor’s – and give them tools to process their trauma.

In the placebo-controlled experiment, she and her team gave mice psychedelic drugs and a behavioral test to gauge the rodents’ ability to learn from their environment. 

“All of the psychedelics opened the critical period of social learning for varying lengths of time,” said Dr. Dolen. 

Ketamine achieved that reopening for 2 days, while the other drugs – ibogaine, LSD, MDMA, and psilocybin – opened critical periods of between 2 and 4 weeks, long after the drugs’ acute effects had worn off.

In humans, Dr. Dolen stressed, opening a critical period would be a sensitive process. 

“You wouldn’t achieve these results if you dropped ecstasy and attended a rave,” she said. “The key seems to be to establish an intention for the therapy: Discuss what you hope to get from the experience, be guided through it, and process it with the therapist after the fact.” 

“You need to be careful with a patient once they’re off the psychedelic,” she said, “because they’re in a state of openness and vulnerability similar to a child.” 
 

The push for psychedelic therapy

Another psychedelics researcher, Matthew Lowe, PhD, sees promise in the Johns Hopkins study. The drugs “place the brain in a more malleable and flexible state,” said Dr. Lowe, the executive director and chief science officer for Unlimited Sciences, a psychedelics research nonprofit.

He expects that psychedelics may help people break out of negative behavior patterns. 

“These findings show significant promise for treating a wide range of neuropsychiatric diseases, including depression, PTSD, and addiction,” he said. 

Dr. Dolen said using psychedelics in critical-period therapy “opens up all sorts of possibilities for the rest of the brain.” Future research may also lead to treatments for deafness, physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol addiction. She is currently raising funds for a clinical trial to see if psychedelics can improve motor impairment after a stroke. 

“Growing legislative openness” to the use of psychedelics could open the door for millions to benefit from mental health treatment “through clinical trials and legal therapeutic pathways as they open up,” said Benjamin Lightburn, CEO and cofounder of Filament Health, a company based in British Columbia that provides naturally derived psilocybin for clinical trials. 

Several states have made moves toward decriminalization or permitting the drugs’ use under medical supervision. In a scientific paper, Washington University researchers, using an analytic model based on marijuana legalization, projected that most states will legalize psychedelics in the next 10-15 years. And on July 1, Australia became the first country to allow psilocybin and MDMA to be prescribed by doctors to treat psychiatric conditions. The U.S. could potentially approve MDMA for therapy later in 2023.

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

I remember what it was like to be a medical student at a well-known cancer hospital where patients were dying of cancer. In life’s final stages, it was not uncommon for physicians to increase the dose of morphine; it alleviated pain, eased labored breathing, and yes, probably hastened the inevitable for patients who were in their final hours. In these scenarios, no one considered this euthanasia, and no one questioned whether it was the right thing to do.

Fast-forward to 2023 when the act of a physician hastening a patient’s death has become a controversial topic as criteria have expanded. Like all such topics in our polarized society, people aligned on sides, politics and religion rush to the head of the room, legislation is proposed, and words take on new meanings. If you’re in favor of legalization of clinician assistance in a patient’s death, the term is “medical assistance in dying”. If you’re opposed, the term is the more graphic physician-assisted suicide.

The scenario is entirely different from what I saw in my medical school rotations decades ago. It’s no longer an issue of easing the pain and discomfort of patients’ final hours; the question now is whether, faced with a potentially terminal or progressively debilitating physical illness, a patient has the right to determine when, and how, their life will end, and the medical profession is given a role in this.

In many places the bar has been further lowered to incorporate nonterminal conditions, and Belgium and the Netherlands now allow physician-facilitated suicide for psychiatric conditions, a practice that many find reprehensible. In these countries, patients may be provided with medications to ingest, but psychiatrists also administer lethal injections.

While Belgium and the Netherlands were the first countries to legalize physician-facilitated death, it could be argued that Canada has embraced it with the most gusto; physician-assisted suicide has been legal there since 2016.

Canada already has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths of any nation, with 10,064 in 2021 – an increase of 32% from 2020. The Canadian federal government is currently considering adding serious mental illness as an eligible category. If this law passes, the country will have the most liberal assisted-death policy in the world. The Canadian government planned to make serious mental illness an eligible category in March 2023, but in an eleventh-hour announcement, it deferred its decision until March 2024.

In a press release, the government said that the 1-year extension would “provide additional time to prepare for the safe and consistent assessment and provision of MAID in all cases, including where the person’s sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness. It will also allow time for the Government of Canada to fully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on MAID, tabled in Parliament on Feb. 15, 2023.”

As a psychiatrist who treats patients with treatment-refractory conditions, I have watched people undergo trial after trial of medications while having psychotherapy, and sometimes transcranial magnetic stimulation or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The thing that is sustaining for patients is the hope that they will get better and go on to find meaning and purpose in life, even if it is not in the form they once envisioned.

To offer the option of a death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get them better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide.

Where is the line, one wonders, when the patient has not responded to two medications or 12? Must they have ECT before we consider helping them end their lives? Do we try for 6 months or 6 years? What about new research pointing to better medications or psychedelics that are not yet available? According to Canada’s proposed legislation, the patient must be aware that treatment options exist, including facilitated suicide.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric conditions creates a conundrum for psychiatrists. As mental health professionals, we work to prevent suicide and view it as an act that is frequently fueled by depression. Those who are determined to die by their own hand often do. Depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loved ones would be better off without them.

These cognitive distortions are part of their illness. So, how do we, as psychiatrists, move from a stance of preventing suicide – using measures such as involuntary treatment when necessary – to being the people who offer and facilitate death for our patients? I’ll leave this for my Canadian colleagues to contemplate, as I live in a state where assisted suicide for any condition remains illegal.

As Canada moves toward facilitating death for serious mental illness, we have to wonder whether racial or socioeconomic factors will play a role. Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death? And how do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?

As psychiatrists, we often struggle to help our patients overcome the stigma associated with treatments for mental illness. Still, patients often refuse potentially helpful treatments because they worry about the consequences of getting care. These include career repercussions and the disapproval of others. When this legislation is finally passed, will our Canadian colleagues offer it as an option when their patient refuses lithium or antipsychotics, inpatient care, or ECT?

Susan Kalish, MD, is a geriatric and palliative care physician in Boston who favors the availability of facilitated death. She practices in a state where this option is not available.

She told me that she is “in favor of expanding acceptance of, and access to, medical aid in dying for patients who choose to exercise autonomy over their dying process, for those who remain with irremediable suffering, despite provision of optimal palliative care.” However, she added, some countries have lowered the threshold “way too far.”

She noted, “It is complicated and harmful to the general issue of medical aid in dying.”

As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it? Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out? If we, as psychiatrists, aren’t the emissaries of hope, who exactly are we?

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. 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. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. 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. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Our fear of death is exposed often in medicine. It is not uncommon to hear the last moments of a patient’s life described as a series of futile, sterile medical interventions that attempt to prolong that life in quasi-sadistic fashion. So much effort is placed in making sure that “everything necessary” is tried that less emphasis is made on providing a comfortable death.

It seems obvious that a profession dedicated to prolonging health would have difficulty confronting death. But it should also be natural for psychiatry to be the specialty able to integrate this discomfort within the medical psyche.

Dr. Neha Akkoor

Yet, in training, we have noted much more time spent on the assessment of capacity in patients in order to refuse medical intervention than on time spent educating about the importance to die at the right time, as suggested by Friedrich Nietzsche.¹ A psychiatry resident may graduate knowing dozens of questions to assess the ability of a family member to consider the risk, benefits, and alternatives of continued intubation in a comatose patient, but may feel very ill-equipped in discussing the meaning of a rightful life and a rightful death.

Death anxiety can also come outside the context of not having endured enough traumas or successes in one’s life, or not having lived life right. As poignantly described by Dostoevsky in his 1864 novella, “Notes from the Underground,” death anxiety can manifest as a result of the deterministic nature of life.² Doing everything which is expected of us can feel like a betrayal of our one chance to have lived life authentically. This concept is also particularly familiar to physicians, who may have – in part – chosen their career path in response to a recommendation from their parents, rather than a more authentic feeling. Dostoevsky goads us to transgress, to act in a rebellious way, to truly feel alive. This can serve as a solution for death anxiety – if you are scared to die then live, live your fullest. Even if that means doing the unexpected or changing your path.

The fear of being forgotten after death can also drive many to pursue a legacy. Even a parent choosing to have children and teaching them values and belief systems is a way of leaving behind a mark on the world. For some, finding ways for being remembered after death – whether through fame, fortune, or having children, is a way of dealing with death anxiety.

The Mexican holiday “Dia de los Muertos,” or Day of the Dead, and the Japanese holiday “Obon” are examples from cultures where deceased ancestors are celebrated through rituals and offerings. Such cultures may relieve the anxiety of death by suggesting that one’s descendants will still care for the departed, and their legacy may remain.
 

Coping with death anxiety

For others, the road to recovery from death anxiety may take a completely different approach. Some may find comfort in the position that, to extinguish death anxiety, one should not live to the fullest but accept the tragic and mostly inconsequential aspects of life. The philosophical movement of “absurdism” addresses this perspective.

In our modern world, where we are so deeply attached to finding the cause and reason for things, absurdism reminds us that most of our lives and world do not have to make sense. While Albert Camus, arguably the most famous of the absurdist philosophers, encourages us to create meaning and transcend the tragedy and randomness of life,³ some patients can also find comfort in the idea that life is absurd, and thus one should not judge one’s own life and not fear own’s inevitable death.

Death anxiety can also be therapeutic. Especially in the existential tradition, one can enlist the fear of death for motivation. Many patients come to see us with a lack of motivation or drive. They feel paralyzed by their predicament and mental illness. As in the experiments of Martin Seligman, PhD, who shocked animals at random, a human exposed to repeated failure and abuse can get a sense of learned helplessness.⁴ Such patients can be very hard to reach, yet ultimately their despondence is no match for the reality that life will end. Reminding a patient that any day spent not feeling alive might as well be a metaphor for death is a challenging interpretation, but one that can lead to significant growth.

When considering the fear of death, psychiatry has generally taken the position that it is pathological, a form of anxiety. Psychiatry argues that one should strive to find fulfillment and joy in life. It thus may be a surprise to find that this is not a universally shared perspective.

In his 2010 book, author Thomas Ligotti argues on behalf of pessimistic and antinatalist views.⁵ Throughout the book he emphasizes the suffering that life can offer and argues against the endless pursuit of more life. To some psychiatrists, such arguments will be understood as insulting to our profession. Some may even interpret his texts as an argument in favor of ending one’s life.

However, psychiatrists must ask themselves “what are my answers to those arguments?” Mr. Ligotti’s book is a series of arguments against the idea that life will be pleasurable. Understanding those arguments and formulating a rebuttal would be an important process for any mental health provider. It is foolish to think that our patients do not have a rich and complicated relationship to death, and that none of our patients find death attractive in some ways. After all, accepting our fears as an important part of our body is a natural coping skill, which can also be taught.⁶

Part of the difficulty in discussing death and the fear of death may come from society’s resistance at having complicated conversations. It is not uncommon, currently, to include trigger warnings at the mention of discussions about death, even abstract ones. While we appreciate and encourage the articulation of feelings that a discussion about death may raise, we worry that such trigger warnings may be a form of censure that only makes society more resistant to talk about those important topics.

For another example of the avoidance of discussions about death, recall the “death panel” debates of 2009.⁷ When the U.S. government considered encouraging physicians to have discussions with their patients about end-of-life care, politicians and pundits decried that such discussions were “death panels,” and claimed they were an encouragement to patients to “cut [their] life short.” Such public projection of one’s anxiety about death has made it particularly difficult for psychiatry to make meaningful progress.
 

Acknowledging and addressing the fear

Death anxiety is such a common aspect of human life that most religions make some effort to address this fear. Many do so by offering a form of afterlife, often one described in idyllic fashion without anxiety.

Heaven, if one believes in it, is appealing for the person dreading death anxiety. Heaven is often described as being offered to those who have lived a rightful life, thus relieving the anxiety regarding the decisions one has made. Reincarnation can also be interpreted as another way of calming death anxiety, by promising a continual repetition of chances at getting life right. However, for many patients, religion doesn’t have the appeal that it once had.

Ultimately, the fear of death is a complex and multifaceted issue that can manifest in various ways. The medical profession, especially psychiatry, has a responsibility to address this fear in patients, but it also struggles with its own discomfort with the topic. The importance of providing a comfortable death is often overshadowed by the emphasis on prolonging life, which may manifest as a series of futile medical interventions.

The fear of death can be therapeutic and motivating, but it can also be pathological and lead to a lack of motivation or drive. The philosophical movements of absurdism and antinatalism offer alternative perspectives on death and life, and it is important for mental health providers to understand and engage with these views.

Society’s resistance to having a meaningful conversation about death only perpetuates the fear and makes progress difficult. Yet acknowledging and addressing the fear of death is an important aspect of mental health care and a crucial part of the human experience.

Dr. Akkoor is a psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She is interested in immigrant mental health, ethics, consultation-liaison psychiatry, and medical education. 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. Dr. Badre and Dr. Akkoor have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Nietzsche F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. 1883-1892.

2. Dostoevsky F. Notes from the Underground. 1864.

3. Camus A. The Plague. 1947.

4. Seligman M. Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. 1975.

5. Ligotti T. The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. 2010.

6. Hayes SC. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):869-85. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006.

7. Nyhan B. The Forum. 2010 April 27;8(1). doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1354.

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

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

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

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

Roughly 3.7 million adults have a history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders – a figure two to three times higher than previously assumed, according to the first study to estimate the national prevalence of schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

This finding is “especially important,” given that people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders experience “high levels of disability that present significant challenges in all aspects of their life,” principal investigator Heather Ringeisen, PhD, with RTI International, a nonprofit research institute based on Research Triangle Park, N.C., said in a statement.

The results “highlight the need to improve systems of care and access to treatment for people with schizophrenia and other mental health disorders,” added co–principal investigator Mark J. Edlund, MD, PhD, also with RTI.

The study also found that prevalence rates of many other nonpsychotic disorders were generally within an expected range in light of findings from prior research – with three exceptions.

Rates of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were higher than reported in past nationally representative samples.

The new data come from the Mental and Substance Use Disorder Prevalence Study (MDPS), a pilot program funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).

A nationally representative sample of 5,679 adults aged 18-65 residing in U.S. households, prisons, homeless shelters, and state psychiatric hospitals were interviewed, virtually or in person, between October 2020 and October 2022.

The research team used a population-based version of the Structured Clinical Interview of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; SCID-5) for mental health and substance use disorder diagnostic assessment.

Among the key findings in the report:

• Nearly 2% of adults (about 3.7 million) had a lifetime history of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, which include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophreniform disorder.
• Roughly 2.5 million adults (1.2%) met diagnostic criteria for a schizophrenia spectrum disorder in the past year.
• The two most common mental disorders among adults were MDD (15.5%, or about 31.4 million) and GAD (10.0%, or about 20.2 million).
• Approximately 8.2 million adults (4.1%) had past-year posttraumatic stress disorder, about 5.0 million (2.5%) had OCD, and roughly 3.1 million (1.5%) had bipolar I disorder.
• Alcohol use disorder (AUD) was the most common substance use disorder among adults aged 18-65; roughly 13.4 million adults (6.7%) met criteria for AUD in the past year.
• About 7.7 million adults (3.8%) had cannabis use disorder, about 3.2 million (1.6%) had stimulant use disorder, and about 1 million (0.5%) had opioid use disorder.

Multiple comorbidities

The data also show that one in four adults had at least one mental health disorder in the past year, most commonly MDD and GAD.

About 11% of adults met the criteria for at least one substance use disorder, with AUD and cannabis use disorder the most common.

In addition, an estimated 11 million adults aged 18-65 had both a mental health disorder and a substance use disorder in the past year.

Encouragingly, the findings suggest that more individuals are seeking and accessing treatment compared with previous studies, the authors noted; 61% of adults with a mental health disorder reported having at least one visit with a treatment provider in the past year.

However, considerable treatment gaps still exist for the most common mental health disorders, they reported. Within the past year, more than 40% of adults with MDD and more than 30% of those with GAD did not receive any treatment services.

The full report is available online.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Investigators have developed and validated a new risk calculator to help predict death by suicide in the 6-12 months after an episode of nonfatal self-harm, new research shows.

A study led by Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, University of Oxford, England, suggests the Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm (OxSATS) may help guide treatment decisions and target resources to those most in need, the researchers note.

“Many tools use only simple high/low categories, whereas OxSATS includes probability scores, which align more closely with risk calculators in cardiovascular medicine, such as the Framingham Risk Score, and prognostic models in cancer medicine, which provide 5-year survival probabilities. This potentially allows OxSATS to inform clinical decision-making more directly,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Targeted tool

Self-harm is associated with a 1-year risk of suicide that is 20 times higher than that of the general population. Given that about 16 million people self-harm annually, the impact at a population level is potentially quite large, the researchers note.

Current structured approaches to gauge suicide risk among those who have engaged in self-harm are based on tools developed for other purposes and symptom checklists. “Their poor to moderate performance is therefore not unexpected,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

In contrast, OxSATS was specifically developed to predict suicide mortality after self-harm.

Dr. Fazel’s group evaluated data on 53,172 Swedish individuals aged 10 years and older who sought emergency medical care after episodes of self-harm.

The development cohort included 37,523 individuals. Of these, 391 died by suicide within 12 months. The validation cohort included 15,649 individuals; of these people, 178 died by suicide within 12 months.

The final OxSATS model includes 11 predictors related to age and sex, as well as variables related to substance misuse, mental health, and treatment and history of self-harm.

“The performance of the model in external validation was good, with c-index at 6 and 12 months of 0.77,” the researchers note.

Using a cutoff threshold of 1%, the OxSATS correctly identified 68% of those who died by suicide within 6 months, while 71% of those who didn’t die were correctly classified as being at low risk. The figures for risk prediction at 12 months were 82% and 54%, respectively.

The OxSATS has been made into a simple online tool with probability scores for suicide at 6 and 12 months after an episode of self-harm, but without linkage to interventions. A tool on its own is unlikely to improve outcomes, said Dr. Fazel.

“However,” he added, “it can improve consistency in the assessment process, especially in busy clinical settings where people from different professional backgrounds and experience undertake such assessments. It can also highlight the role of modifiable risk factors and provide an opportunity to transparently discuss risk with patients and their carers.”
 

Valuable work

Reached for comment, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that this is a “very solid study with a very large sample size and solid statistical analysis.”

Another strength of the research is the outcome of suicide death versus suicide attempt or suicidal ideation. “In that respect, it is a valuable paper,” Dr. Galynker, who directs the Mount Sinai Beth Israel Suicide Research Laboratory, told this news organization.

He noted that there are no new risk factors in the model. Rather, the model contains the typical risk factors for suicide, which include male sex, substance misuse, past suicide attempt, and psychiatric diagnosis.

“The strongest risk factor in the model is self-harm by hanging, strangulation, or suffocation, which has been shown before and is therefore unsurprising,” said Dr. Galynker.

In general, the risk factors included in the model are often part of administrative tools for suicide risk assessment, said Dr. Galynker, but the OxSATS “seems easier to use because it has 11 items only.”

Broadly speaking, individuals with mental illness and past suicide attempt, past self-harm, alcohol use, and other risk factors “should be treated proactively with suicide prevention measures,” he told this news organization.

As previously reported, Dr. Galynker and colleagues have developed the Abbreviated Suicide Crisis Syndrome Checklist (A-SCS-C), a novel tool to help identify which suicidal patients who present to the emergency department should be admitted to hospital and which patients can be safely discharged.

Funding for the study was provided by Wellcome Trust and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Fazel and Dr. Galynker have no relevant disclosures.

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

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral contraceptive (OC) use has been linked to increased depression risk, especially within the first 2 years following initiation, new research shows.

In addition, OC use in adolescence has been tied to an increased risk for depression later in life. However, some experts believe the study’s methodology may be flawed.

The investigators tracked more than 250,000 women from birth to menopause, gathering information about their use of combined contraceptive pills (progesterone and estrogen), the timing of the initial depression diagnosis, and the onset of depressive symptoms that were not formally diagnosed.

areeya_ann/Thinkstock

Women who began using these OCs before or at the age of 20 experienced a 130% higher incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas adult users saw a 92% increase. But the higher occurrence of depression tended to decline after the first 2 years of use, except in teenagers, who maintained an increased incidence of depression even after discontinuation.

This effect remained, even after analysis of potential familial confounding.

“Our findings suggest that the use of OCs, particularly during the first 2 years, increases the risk of depression. Additionally, OC use during adolescence might increase the risk of depression later in life,” Therese Johansson, of the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences.
 

Inconsistent findings

Previous studies suggest an association between adolescent use of hormonal contraceptives (HCs) and increased depression risk, but it’s “less clear” whether these effects are similar in adults, the authors wrote. Randomized clinical trials have “shown little or no effect” of HCs on mood. However, most of these studies didn’t consider previous use of HC.

The researchers wanted to estimate the incidence rate of depression associated with first initiation of OC use as well as the lifetime risk associated with use.

They studied 264,557 female participants in the UK Biobank (aged 37-71 years), collecting data from questionnaires, interviews, physical health measures, biological samples, imaging, and linked health records.

Most participants taking OCs had initiated use during the 1970s/early 1980s when second-generation OCs were predominantly used, consisting of levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol.

The researchers conducted a secondary outcome analysis on women who completed the UK Biobank Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ) to evaluate depressive symptoms.

They estimated the associated risk for depression within 2 years after starting OCs in all women, as well as in groups stratified by age at initiation: before age 20 (adolescents) and age 20 and older (adults). In addition, the investigators estimated the lifetime risk for depression.

Time-dependent analysis compared the effect of OC use at initiation to the effect during the remaining years of use in recent and previous users.

They analyzed a subcohort of female siblings, utilizing “inference about causation from examination of familial confounding,” defined by the authors as a “regression-based approach for determining causality through the use of paired observational data collected from related individuals.”
 

Adolescents at highest risk

Of the participants, 80.6% had used OCs at some point.

The first 2 years of use were associated with a higher rate of depression among users, compared with never-users (hazard ration, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-1.96). Although the risk became less pronounced after that, ever-use was still associated with increased lifetime risk for depression (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Adolescents and adult OC users both experienced higher rates of depression during the first 2 years, with a more marked effect in adolescents than in adults (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.64-2.32; and HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.54-1.95, respectively).

Previous users of OCs had a higher lifetime risk for depression, compared with never-users (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).

Of the subcohort of women who completed the MHQ (n = 82,232), about half reported experiencing at least one of the core depressive symptoms.

OC initiation was associated with an increased risk for depressive symptoms during the first 2 years in ever- versus never-users (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.91-2.10).

Those who began using OCs during adolescence had a dramatically higher rate of depressive symptoms, compared with never-users (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51), as did adult initiators (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 2.11-2.51).

In the analysis of 7,354 first-degree sister pairs, 81% had initiated OCs. A sibling’s OC use was positively associated with a depression diagnosis, and the cosibling’s OC use was also associated with the sibling’s depression diagnosis. “These results support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between OC use and depression, such that OC use increases the risk of depression,” the authors wrote.

The main limitation is the potential for recall bias in the self-reported data, and that the UK Biobank sample consists of a healthier population than the overall U.K. population, which “hampers the generalizability” of the findings, the authors stated.
 

Flawed study

In a comment, Natalie Rasgon, MD, founder and director of the Stanford (Calif.) Center for Neuroscience in Women’s Health, said the study was “well researched” and “well written” but had “methodological issues.”

She questioned the sibling component, “which the researchers regard as confirming causality.” The effect may be “important but not causative.” Causality in people who are recalling retrospectively “is highly questionable by any adept researcher because it’s subject to memory. Different siblings may have different recall.”

The authors also didn’t study the indication for OC use. Several medical conditions are treated with OCs, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, the “number one mood disorder among women of reproductive age.” Including this “could have made a huge difference in outcome data,” said Dr. Rasgon, who was not involved with the study.

Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, noted participants were asked to recall depressive symptoms and OC use as far back as 20-30 years ago, which lends itself to inaccurate recall.

And the researchers didn’t ascertain whether the contraceptives had been used continuously or had been started, stopped, and restarted. Nor did they look at different formulations and doses. And the observational nature of the study “limits the ability to infer causation,” continued Dr. Oelschlager, chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Consensus Gynecology Committee. She was not involved with the study.

“This study is too flawed to use meaningfully in clinical practice,” Dr. Oelschlager concluded.

The study was primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, and the Uppsala University Center for Women ‘s Mental Health during the Reproductive Lifespan. The authors, Dr. Rasgon, and Dr. Oelschlager declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is a drug safety program the FDA can require for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks (Box¹). The FDA may require medication guides, patient package inserts, communication plans for health care professionals, and/or certain packaging and safe disposal technologies for medications that pose a serious risk of abuse or overdose. The FDA may also require elements to assure safe use and/or an implementation system be included in the REMS. Pharmaceutical manufacturers then develop a proposed REMS for FDA review.² If the FDA approves the proposed REMS, the manufacturer is responsible for implementing the REMS requirements.

Box

The REMS program for clozapine³ has been the subject of much discussion in the psychiatric community. The adverse impact of the 2015 update to the clozapine REMS program was emphasized at meetings of both the American Psychiatric Association and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. A white paper published by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors shortly after the 2015 update concluded, “clozapine is underused due to a variety of barriers related to the drug and its properties, the health care system, regulatory requirements, and reimbursement issues.”⁴ After an update to the clozapine REMS program in 2021, the FDA temporarily suspended enforcement of certain requirements due to concerns from health care professionals about patient access to the medication because of problems with implementing the clozapine REMS program.^5,6 In November 2022, the FDA issued a second announcement of enforcement discretion related to additional requirements of the REMS program.⁵ The FDA had previously announced a decision to not take action regarding adherence to REMS requirements for certain laboratory tests in March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷

REMS programs for other psychiatric medications may also present challenges. The REMS programs for esketamine⁸ and olanzapine for extended-release (ER) injectable suspension⁹ include certain risks that require postadministration monitoring. Some facilities have had to dedicate additional space and clinician time to ensure REMS requirements are met.

To further understand health care professionals’ perspectives regarding the value and burden of these REMS programs, a collaborative effort of the University of Maryland (College Park and Baltimore campuses) Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation with the FDA was undertaken. The REMS for clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine were examined to develop recommendations for improving patient access while ensuring safe medication use and limiting the impact on health care professionals.

Assessing the REMS programs

Focus groups were held with health care professionals nominated by professional organizations to gather their perspectives on the REMS requirements. There was 1 focus group for each of the 3 medications. A facilitator’s guide was developed that contained the details of how to conduct the focus group along with the medication-specific questions. The questions were based on the REMS requirements as of May 2021 and assessed the impact of the REMS on patient safety, patient access, and health care professional workload; effects from the COVID-19 pandemic; and suggestions to improve the REMS programs. The University of Maryland Institutional Review Board reviewed the materials and processes and made the determination of exempt.

Health care professionals were eligible to participate in a focus group if they had ≥1 year of experience working with patients who use the specific medication and ≥6 months of experience within the past year working with the REMS program for that medication. Participants were excluded if they were employed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or the FDA. The focus groups were conducted virtually using an online conferencing service during summer 2021 and were scheduled for 90 minutes. Prior to the focus group, participants received information from the “Goals” and “Summary” tabs of the FDA REMS website¹⁰ for the specific medication along with patient/caregiver guides, which were available for clozapine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension. For each focus group, there was a target sample size of 6 to 9 participants. However, there were only 4 participants in the olanzapine for ER injectable suspension focus group, which we believed was due to lower national utilization of this medication. Individuals were only able to participate in 1 focus group, so the unique participant count for all 3 focus groups totaled 17 (Table 1).

Themes extracted from qualitative analysis of the focus group responses were the value of the REMS programs; registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites; monitoring requirements; care transitions; and COVID considerations (Table 2). While the REMS programs were perceived to increase practitioner and patient awareness of potential harms, discussions centered on the relative cost-to-benefit of the required reporting and other REMS requirements. There were challenges with the registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites that also affected patient care during transitions to different health care settings or clinicians. Patient access was affected by disparities in care related to monitoring requirements and clinician availability.

Continue to: COVID impacted all REMS...

COVID impacted all REMS programs. Physical distancing was an issue for medications that required extensive postadministration monitoring (ie, esketamine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension). Access to laboratory services was an issue for clozapine.

Medication-specific themes are listed in Table 3 and relate to terms and descriptions in the REMS or additional regulatory requirements from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Suggestions for improvement to the REMS are presented in Table 4.

Recommendations for improving REMS

A group consisting of health care professionals, policy experts, and mental health advocates reviewed the information provided by the focus groups and developed the following recommendations.

Overarching recommendations

Each REMS should include a section providing justification for its existence, including a risk analysis of the data regarding the risk the REMS is designed to mitigate. This analysis should be repeated on a regular basis as scientific evidence regarding the risk and its epidemiology evolves. This additional section should also explain how the program requirements of the REMS as implemented (or planned) will achieve the aims of the REMS and weigh the potential benefits of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer vs the potential risks of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer.

Each REMS should have specific quantifiable outcomes. For example, it should specify a reduction in occurrence of the rate of the concerned risk by a specified amount.

Continue to: Ensure adequate...

Ensure adequate stakeholder input during the REMS development and real-world testing in multiple environments before implementing the REMS to identify unanticipated consequences that might impact patient access, patient safety, and health care professional burden. Implementation testing should explore issues such as purchasing and procurement, billing and reimbursement, and relevant factors such as other federal regulations or requirements (eg, the DEA or Medicare).

Ensure harmonization of the REMS forms and processes (eg, initiation and monitoring) for different medications where possible. A prescriber, pharmacist, or system should not face additional barriers to participate in a REMS based on REMS-specific intricacies (ie, prescription systems, data submission systems, or ordering systems). This streamlining will likely decrease clinical inertia to initiate care with the REMS medication, decrease health care professional burden, and improve compliance with REMS requirements.

REMS should anticipate the need for care transitions and employ provisions to ensure seamless care. Considerations should be given to transitions that occur due to:

• Different care settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient, or long-term care)
• Different geographies (eg, patient moves)
• Changes in clinicians, including leaves or absences
• Changes in facilities (eg, pharmacies).

REMS should mirror normal health care professional workflow, including how monitoring data are collected and how and with which frequency pharmacies fill prescriptions.Enhanced information technology to support REMS programs is needed. For example, REMS should be integrated with major electronic patient health record and pharmacy systems to reduce the effort required for clinicians to supply data and automate REMS processes.

For medications that are subject to other agencies and their regulations (eg, the CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or the DEA), REMS should be required to meet all standards of all agencies with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

Continue to: REMS should have a...

REMS should have a standard disclaimer that allows the health care professional to waive certain provisions of the REMS in cases when the specific provisions of the REMS pose a greater risk to the patient than the risk posed by waiving the requirement.

Assure the actions implemented by the industry to meet the requirements for each REMS program are based on peer-reviewed evidence and provide a reasonable expectation to achieve the anticipated benefit.

Ensure that manufacturers make all accumulated REMS data available in a de­identified manner for use by qualified scientific researchers. Additionally, each REMS should have a plan for data access upon initiation and termination of the REMS.

Each REMS should collect data on the performance of the centers and/or personnel who operate the REMS and submit this data for review by qualified outside reviewers. Parameters to assess could include:

• timeliness of response
• timeliness of problem resolution
• data availability and its helpfulness to patient care
• adequacy of resources.

Recommendations for clozapine REMS

These comments relate to the clozapine REMS program prior to the July 2021 announcement that FDA had approved a modification.

Provide a clear definition for “benign ethnic neutropenia.”

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for monitoring. During COVID, the FDA allowed clinicians to “use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of laboratory testing.”⁷ This guidance, which allowed flexibility to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring, was perceived as positive and safe. Before the changes in the REMS requirements, patients with benign ethnic neutropenia were restricted from accessing their medication or encountered harm from additional pharmacotherapy to mitigate ANC levels.

Continue to: Recommendations for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension REMS

Provide clear explicit instructions on what is required to have “ready access to emergency services.”

Ensure the REMS include patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for postadministration monitoring (eg, sedation or blood pressure). Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of olanzapine for ER injectable suspension by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness are included in the REMS. How was the 3-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure the REMS requirements allow for seamless care during transitions, particularly when clinicians are on vacation.

Continue to: Recommendations for esketamine REMS

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for post­administration monitoring. Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of esketamine by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness of requirements are included in the REMS. How was the 2-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure that the REMS meet all standards of the DEA, with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

A summary of the findings

Overall, the REMS programs for these 3 medications were positively perceived for raising awareness of safe medication use for clinicians and patients. Monitoring patients for safety concerns is important and REMS requirements provide accountability.

Continue to: The use of a single shared...

The use of a single shared REMS system for documenting requirements for clozapine (compared to separate systems for each manufacturer) was a positive move forward in implementation. The focus group welcomed the increased awareness of benign ethnic neutropenia as a result of this condition being incorporated in the revised monitoring requirements of the clozapine REMS.

Focus group participants raised the issue of the real-world efficiency of the REMS programs (reduced access and increased clinician workload) vs the benefits (patient safety). They noted that excessive workload could lead to clinicians becoming unwilling to use a medication that requires a REMS. Clinician workload may be further compromised when REMS logistics disrupt the normal workflow and transitions of care between clinicians or settings. This latter aspect is of particular concern for clozapine.

The complexities of the registration and reporting system for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension and the lack of clarity about monitoring were noted to have discouraged the opening of treatment sites. This scarcity of sites may make clinicians hesitant to use this medication, and instead opt for alternative treatments in patients who may be appropriate candidates.

There has also been limited growth of esketamine treatment sites, especially in comparison to ketamine treatment sites.^11-14 Esketamine is FDA-approved for treatment-resistant depression in adults and for depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Ketamine is not FDA-approved for treating depression but is being used off-label to treat this disorder.¹⁵ The FDA determined that ketamine does not require a REMS to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks for its approved indications as an anesthetic agent, anesthesia-inducing agent, or supplement to anesthesia. Since ketamine has no REMS requirements, there may be a lower burden for its use. Thus, clinicians are treating patients for depression with this medication without needing to comply with a REMS.¹⁶

Technology plays a role in workload burden, and integrating health care processes within current workflow systems, such as using electronic patient health records and pharmacy systems, is recommended. The FDA has been exploring technologies to facilitate the completion of REMS requirements, including mandatory education within the prescribers’ and pharmacists’ workflow.¹⁷ This is a complex task that requires multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives and incentives to align.

Continue to: The data collected for the REMS...

The data collected for the REMS program belongs to the medication’s manufacturer. Current regulations do not require manufacturers to make this data available to qualified scientific researchers. A regulatory mandate to establish data sharing methods would improve transparency and enhance efforts to better understand the outcomes of the REMS programs.

A few caveats

Both the overarching and medication-specific recommendations were based on a small number of participants’ discussions related to clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine. These recommendations do not include other medications with REMS that are used to treat psychiatric disorders, such as loxapine, buprenorphine ER, and buprenorphine transmucosal products. Larger-scale qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand health care professionals’ perspectives. Lastly, some of the recommendations outlined in this article are beyond the current purview or authority of the FDA and may require legislative or regulatory action to implement.

Bottom Line

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs are designed to help reduce the occurrence and/or severity of serious risks or to inform decision-making. However, REMS requirements may adversely impact patient access to certain REMS medications and clinician burden. Health care professionals can provide informed recommendations for improving the REMS programs for clozapine, olanzapine for extended-release injectable suspension, and esketamine.

Related Resources

• FDA. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about REMS. www.fda.gov/drugs/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-about-rems

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine extended-release • Sublocade
Buprenorphine transmucosal • Subutex, Suboxone
Clozapine • Clozaril
Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Loxapine • Adasuve
Olanzapine extended-release injectable suspension • Zyprexa Relprevv

A Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is a drug safety program the FDA can require for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks (Box¹). The FDA may require medication guides, patient package inserts, communication plans for health care professionals, and/or certain packaging and safe disposal technologies for medications that pose a serious risk of abuse or overdose. The FDA may also require elements to assure safe use and/or an implementation system be included in the REMS. Pharmaceutical manufacturers then develop a proposed REMS for FDA review.² If the FDA approves the proposed REMS, the manufacturer is responsible for implementing the REMS requirements.

Box

The REMS program for clozapine³ has been the subject of much discussion in the psychiatric community. The adverse impact of the 2015 update to the clozapine REMS program was emphasized at meetings of both the American Psychiatric Association and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. A white paper published by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors shortly after the 2015 update concluded, “clozapine is underused due to a variety of barriers related to the drug and its properties, the health care system, regulatory requirements, and reimbursement issues.”⁴ After an update to the clozapine REMS program in 2021, the FDA temporarily suspended enforcement of certain requirements due to concerns from health care professionals about patient access to the medication because of problems with implementing the clozapine REMS program.^5,6 In November 2022, the FDA issued a second announcement of enforcement discretion related to additional requirements of the REMS program.⁵ The FDA had previously announced a decision to not take action regarding adherence to REMS requirements for certain laboratory tests in March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷

REMS programs for other psychiatric medications may also present challenges. The REMS programs for esketamine⁸ and olanzapine for extended-release (ER) injectable suspension⁹ include certain risks that require postadministration monitoring. Some facilities have had to dedicate additional space and clinician time to ensure REMS requirements are met.

To further understand health care professionals’ perspectives regarding the value and burden of these REMS programs, a collaborative effort of the University of Maryland (College Park and Baltimore campuses) Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation with the FDA was undertaken. The REMS for clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine were examined to develop recommendations for improving patient access while ensuring safe medication use and limiting the impact on health care professionals.

Assessing the REMS programs

Focus groups were held with health care professionals nominated by professional organizations to gather their perspectives on the REMS requirements. There was 1 focus group for each of the 3 medications. A facilitator’s guide was developed that contained the details of how to conduct the focus group along with the medication-specific questions. The questions were based on the REMS requirements as of May 2021 and assessed the impact of the REMS on patient safety, patient access, and health care professional workload; effects from the COVID-19 pandemic; and suggestions to improve the REMS programs. The University of Maryland Institutional Review Board reviewed the materials and processes and made the determination of exempt.

Health care professionals were eligible to participate in a focus group if they had ≥1 year of experience working with patients who use the specific medication and ≥6 months of experience within the past year working with the REMS program for that medication. Participants were excluded if they were employed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or the FDA. The focus groups were conducted virtually using an online conferencing service during summer 2021 and were scheduled for 90 minutes. Prior to the focus group, participants received information from the “Goals” and “Summary” tabs of the FDA REMS website¹⁰ for the specific medication along with patient/caregiver guides, which were available for clozapine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension. For each focus group, there was a target sample size of 6 to 9 participants. However, there were only 4 participants in the olanzapine for ER injectable suspension focus group, which we believed was due to lower national utilization of this medication. Individuals were only able to participate in 1 focus group, so the unique participant count for all 3 focus groups totaled 17 (Table 1).

Themes extracted from qualitative analysis of the focus group responses were the value of the REMS programs; registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites; monitoring requirements; care transitions; and COVID considerations (Table 2). While the REMS programs were perceived to increase practitioner and patient awareness of potential harms, discussions centered on the relative cost-to-benefit of the required reporting and other REMS requirements. There were challenges with the registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites that also affected patient care during transitions to different health care settings or clinicians. Patient access was affected by disparities in care related to monitoring requirements and clinician availability.

Continue to: COVID impacted all REMS...

COVID impacted all REMS programs. Physical distancing was an issue for medications that required extensive postadministration monitoring (ie, esketamine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension). Access to laboratory services was an issue for clozapine.

Medication-specific themes are listed in Table 3 and relate to terms and descriptions in the REMS or additional regulatory requirements from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Suggestions for improvement to the REMS are presented in Table 4.

Recommendations for improving REMS

A group consisting of health care professionals, policy experts, and mental health advocates reviewed the information provided by the focus groups and developed the following recommendations.

Overarching recommendations

Each REMS should include a section providing justification for its existence, including a risk analysis of the data regarding the risk the REMS is designed to mitigate. This analysis should be repeated on a regular basis as scientific evidence regarding the risk and its epidemiology evolves. This additional section should also explain how the program requirements of the REMS as implemented (or planned) will achieve the aims of the REMS and weigh the potential benefits of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer vs the potential risks of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer.

Each REMS should have specific quantifiable outcomes. For example, it should specify a reduction in occurrence of the rate of the concerned risk by a specified amount.

Continue to: Ensure adequate...

Ensure adequate stakeholder input during the REMS development and real-world testing in multiple environments before implementing the REMS to identify unanticipated consequences that might impact patient access, patient safety, and health care professional burden. Implementation testing should explore issues such as purchasing and procurement, billing and reimbursement, and relevant factors such as other federal regulations or requirements (eg, the DEA or Medicare).

Ensure harmonization of the REMS forms and processes (eg, initiation and monitoring) for different medications where possible. A prescriber, pharmacist, or system should not face additional barriers to participate in a REMS based on REMS-specific intricacies (ie, prescription systems, data submission systems, or ordering systems). This streamlining will likely decrease clinical inertia to initiate care with the REMS medication, decrease health care professional burden, and improve compliance with REMS requirements.

REMS should anticipate the need for care transitions and employ provisions to ensure seamless care. Considerations should be given to transitions that occur due to:

• Different care settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient, or long-term care)
• Different geographies (eg, patient moves)
• Changes in clinicians, including leaves or absences
• Changes in facilities (eg, pharmacies).

REMS should mirror normal health care professional workflow, including how monitoring data are collected and how and with which frequency pharmacies fill prescriptions.Enhanced information technology to support REMS programs is needed. For example, REMS should be integrated with major electronic patient health record and pharmacy systems to reduce the effort required for clinicians to supply data and automate REMS processes.

For medications that are subject to other agencies and their regulations (eg, the CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or the DEA), REMS should be required to meet all standards of all agencies with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

Continue to: REMS should have a...

REMS should have a standard disclaimer that allows the health care professional to waive certain provisions of the REMS in cases when the specific provisions of the REMS pose a greater risk to the patient than the risk posed by waiving the requirement.

Assure the actions implemented by the industry to meet the requirements for each REMS program are based on peer-reviewed evidence and provide a reasonable expectation to achieve the anticipated benefit.

Ensure that manufacturers make all accumulated REMS data available in a de­identified manner for use by qualified scientific researchers. Additionally, each REMS should have a plan for data access upon initiation and termination of the REMS.

Each REMS should collect data on the performance of the centers and/or personnel who operate the REMS and submit this data for review by qualified outside reviewers. Parameters to assess could include:

• timeliness of response
• timeliness of problem resolution
• data availability and its helpfulness to patient care
• adequacy of resources.

Recommendations for clozapine REMS

These comments relate to the clozapine REMS program prior to the July 2021 announcement that FDA had approved a modification.

Provide a clear definition for “benign ethnic neutropenia.”

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for monitoring. During COVID, the FDA allowed clinicians to “use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of laboratory testing.”⁷ This guidance, which allowed flexibility to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring, was perceived as positive and safe. Before the changes in the REMS requirements, patients with benign ethnic neutropenia were restricted from accessing their medication or encountered harm from additional pharmacotherapy to mitigate ANC levels.

Continue to: Recommendations for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension REMS

Provide clear explicit instructions on what is required to have “ready access to emergency services.”

Ensure the REMS include patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for postadministration monitoring (eg, sedation or blood pressure). Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of olanzapine for ER injectable suspension by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness are included in the REMS. How was the 3-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure the REMS requirements allow for seamless care during transitions, particularly when clinicians are on vacation.

Continue to: Recommendations for esketamine REMS

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for post­administration monitoring. Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of esketamine by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness of requirements are included in the REMS. How was the 2-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure that the REMS meet all standards of the DEA, with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

A summary of the findings

Overall, the REMS programs for these 3 medications were positively perceived for raising awareness of safe medication use for clinicians and patients. Monitoring patients for safety concerns is important and REMS requirements provide accountability.

Continue to: The use of a single shared...

The use of a single shared REMS system for documenting requirements for clozapine (compared to separate systems for each manufacturer) was a positive move forward in implementation. The focus group welcomed the increased awareness of benign ethnic neutropenia as a result of this condition being incorporated in the revised monitoring requirements of the clozapine REMS.

Focus group participants raised the issue of the real-world efficiency of the REMS programs (reduced access and increased clinician workload) vs the benefits (patient safety). They noted that excessive workload could lead to clinicians becoming unwilling to use a medication that requires a REMS. Clinician workload may be further compromised when REMS logistics disrupt the normal workflow and transitions of care between clinicians or settings. This latter aspect is of particular concern for clozapine.

The complexities of the registration and reporting system for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension and the lack of clarity about monitoring were noted to have discouraged the opening of treatment sites. This scarcity of sites may make clinicians hesitant to use this medication, and instead opt for alternative treatments in patients who may be appropriate candidates.

There has also been limited growth of esketamine treatment sites, especially in comparison to ketamine treatment sites.^11-14 Esketamine is FDA-approved for treatment-resistant depression in adults and for depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Ketamine is not FDA-approved for treating depression but is being used off-label to treat this disorder.¹⁵ The FDA determined that ketamine does not require a REMS to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks for its approved indications as an anesthetic agent, anesthesia-inducing agent, or supplement to anesthesia. Since ketamine has no REMS requirements, there may be a lower burden for its use. Thus, clinicians are treating patients for depression with this medication without needing to comply with a REMS.¹⁶

Technology plays a role in workload burden, and integrating health care processes within current workflow systems, such as using electronic patient health records and pharmacy systems, is recommended. The FDA has been exploring technologies to facilitate the completion of REMS requirements, including mandatory education within the prescribers’ and pharmacists’ workflow.¹⁷ This is a complex task that requires multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives and incentives to align.

Continue to: The data collected for the REMS...

The data collected for the REMS program belongs to the medication’s manufacturer. Current regulations do not require manufacturers to make this data available to qualified scientific researchers. A regulatory mandate to establish data sharing methods would improve transparency and enhance efforts to better understand the outcomes of the REMS programs.

A few caveats

Both the overarching and medication-specific recommendations were based on a small number of participants’ discussions related to clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine. These recommendations do not include other medications with REMS that are used to treat psychiatric disorders, such as loxapine, buprenorphine ER, and buprenorphine transmucosal products. Larger-scale qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand health care professionals’ perspectives. Lastly, some of the recommendations outlined in this article are beyond the current purview or authority of the FDA and may require legislative or regulatory action to implement.

Bottom Line

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs are designed to help reduce the occurrence and/or severity of serious risks or to inform decision-making. However, REMS requirements may adversely impact patient access to certain REMS medications and clinician burden. Health care professionals can provide informed recommendations for improving the REMS programs for clozapine, olanzapine for extended-release injectable suspension, and esketamine.

Related Resources

• FDA. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about REMS. www.fda.gov/drugs/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-about-rems

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine extended-release • Sublocade
Buprenorphine transmucosal • Subutex, Suboxone
Clozapine • Clozaril
Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Loxapine • Adasuve
Olanzapine extended-release injectable suspension • Zyprexa Relprevv

A Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is a drug safety program the FDA can require for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks (Box¹). The FDA may require medication guides, patient package inserts, communication plans for health care professionals, and/or certain packaging and safe disposal technologies for medications that pose a serious risk of abuse or overdose. The FDA may also require elements to assure safe use and/or an implementation system be included in the REMS. Pharmaceutical manufacturers then develop a proposed REMS for FDA review.² If the FDA approves the proposed REMS, the manufacturer is responsible for implementing the REMS requirements.

Box

The REMS program for clozapine³ has been the subject of much discussion in the psychiatric community. The adverse impact of the 2015 update to the clozapine REMS program was emphasized at meetings of both the American Psychiatric Association and the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. A white paper published by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors shortly after the 2015 update concluded, “clozapine is underused due to a variety of barriers related to the drug and its properties, the health care system, regulatory requirements, and reimbursement issues.”⁴ After an update to the clozapine REMS program in 2021, the FDA temporarily suspended enforcement of certain requirements due to concerns from health care professionals about patient access to the medication because of problems with implementing the clozapine REMS program.^5,6 In November 2022, the FDA issued a second announcement of enforcement discretion related to additional requirements of the REMS program.⁵ The FDA had previously announced a decision to not take action regarding adherence to REMS requirements for certain laboratory tests in March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷

REMS programs for other psychiatric medications may also present challenges. The REMS programs for esketamine⁸ and olanzapine for extended-release (ER) injectable suspension⁹ include certain risks that require postadministration monitoring. Some facilities have had to dedicate additional space and clinician time to ensure REMS requirements are met.

To further understand health care professionals’ perspectives regarding the value and burden of these REMS programs, a collaborative effort of the University of Maryland (College Park and Baltimore campuses) Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation with the FDA was undertaken. The REMS for clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine were examined to develop recommendations for improving patient access while ensuring safe medication use and limiting the impact on health care professionals.

Assessing the REMS programs

Focus groups were held with health care professionals nominated by professional organizations to gather their perspectives on the REMS requirements. There was 1 focus group for each of the 3 medications. A facilitator’s guide was developed that contained the details of how to conduct the focus group along with the medication-specific questions. The questions were based on the REMS requirements as of May 2021 and assessed the impact of the REMS on patient safety, patient access, and health care professional workload; effects from the COVID-19 pandemic; and suggestions to improve the REMS programs. The University of Maryland Institutional Review Board reviewed the materials and processes and made the determination of exempt.

Health care professionals were eligible to participate in a focus group if they had ≥1 year of experience working with patients who use the specific medication and ≥6 months of experience within the past year working with the REMS program for that medication. Participants were excluded if they were employed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or the FDA. The focus groups were conducted virtually using an online conferencing service during summer 2021 and were scheduled for 90 minutes. Prior to the focus group, participants received information from the “Goals” and “Summary” tabs of the FDA REMS website¹⁰ for the specific medication along with patient/caregiver guides, which were available for clozapine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension. For each focus group, there was a target sample size of 6 to 9 participants. However, there were only 4 participants in the olanzapine for ER injectable suspension focus group, which we believed was due to lower national utilization of this medication. Individuals were only able to participate in 1 focus group, so the unique participant count for all 3 focus groups totaled 17 (Table 1).

Themes extracted from qualitative analysis of the focus group responses were the value of the REMS programs; registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites; monitoring requirements; care transitions; and COVID considerations (Table 2). While the REMS programs were perceived to increase practitioner and patient awareness of potential harms, discussions centered on the relative cost-to-benefit of the required reporting and other REMS requirements. There were challenges with the registration/enrollment processes and REMS websites that also affected patient care during transitions to different health care settings or clinicians. Patient access was affected by disparities in care related to monitoring requirements and clinician availability.

Continue to: COVID impacted all REMS...

COVID impacted all REMS programs. Physical distancing was an issue for medications that required extensive postadministration monitoring (ie, esketamine and olanzapine for ER injectable suspension). Access to laboratory services was an issue for clozapine.

Medication-specific themes are listed in Table 3 and relate to terms and descriptions in the REMS or additional regulatory requirements from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Suggestions for improvement to the REMS are presented in Table 4.

Recommendations for improving REMS

A group consisting of health care professionals, policy experts, and mental health advocates reviewed the information provided by the focus groups and developed the following recommendations.

Overarching recommendations

Each REMS should include a section providing justification for its existence, including a risk analysis of the data regarding the risk the REMS is designed to mitigate. This analysis should be repeated on a regular basis as scientific evidence regarding the risk and its epidemiology evolves. This additional section should also explain how the program requirements of the REMS as implemented (or planned) will achieve the aims of the REMS and weigh the potential benefits of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer vs the potential risks of the REMS requirements as implemented (or planned) by the manufacturer.

Each REMS should have specific quantifiable outcomes. For example, it should specify a reduction in occurrence of the rate of the concerned risk by a specified amount.

Continue to: Ensure adequate...

Ensure adequate stakeholder input during the REMS development and real-world testing in multiple environments before implementing the REMS to identify unanticipated consequences that might impact patient access, patient safety, and health care professional burden. Implementation testing should explore issues such as purchasing and procurement, billing and reimbursement, and relevant factors such as other federal regulations or requirements (eg, the DEA or Medicare).

Ensure harmonization of the REMS forms and processes (eg, initiation and monitoring) for different medications where possible. A prescriber, pharmacist, or system should not face additional barriers to participate in a REMS based on REMS-specific intricacies (ie, prescription systems, data submission systems, or ordering systems). This streamlining will likely decrease clinical inertia to initiate care with the REMS medication, decrease health care professional burden, and improve compliance with REMS requirements.

REMS should anticipate the need for care transitions and employ provisions to ensure seamless care. Considerations should be given to transitions that occur due to:

• Different care settings (eg, inpatient, outpatient, or long-term care)
• Different geographies (eg, patient moves)
• Changes in clinicians, including leaves or absences
• Changes in facilities (eg, pharmacies).

REMS should mirror normal health care professional workflow, including how monitoring data are collected and how and with which frequency pharmacies fill prescriptions.Enhanced information technology to support REMS programs is needed. For example, REMS should be integrated with major electronic patient health record and pharmacy systems to reduce the effort required for clinicians to supply data and automate REMS processes.

For medications that are subject to other agencies and their regulations (eg, the CDC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or the DEA), REMS should be required to meet all standards of all agencies with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

Continue to: REMS should have a...

REMS should have a standard disclaimer that allows the health care professional to waive certain provisions of the REMS in cases when the specific provisions of the REMS pose a greater risk to the patient than the risk posed by waiving the requirement.

Assure the actions implemented by the industry to meet the requirements for each REMS program are based on peer-reviewed evidence and provide a reasonable expectation to achieve the anticipated benefit.

Ensure that manufacturers make all accumulated REMS data available in a de­identified manner for use by qualified scientific researchers. Additionally, each REMS should have a plan for data access upon initiation and termination of the REMS.

Each REMS should collect data on the performance of the centers and/or personnel who operate the REMS and submit this data for review by qualified outside reviewers. Parameters to assess could include:

• timeliness of response
• timeliness of problem resolution
• data availability and its helpfulness to patient care
• adequacy of resources.

Recommendations for clozapine REMS

These comments relate to the clozapine REMS program prior to the July 2021 announcement that FDA had approved a modification.

Provide a clear definition for “benign ethnic neutropenia.”

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for monitoring. During COVID, the FDA allowed clinicians to “use their best medical judgment in weighing the benefits and risks of continuing treatment in the absence of laboratory testing.”⁷ This guidance, which allowed flexibility to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) monitoring, was perceived as positive and safe. Before the changes in the REMS requirements, patients with benign ethnic neutropenia were restricted from accessing their medication or encountered harm from additional pharmacotherapy to mitigate ANC levels.

Continue to: Recommendations for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension REMS

Provide clear explicit instructions on what is required to have “ready access to emergency services.”

Ensure the REMS include patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for postadministration monitoring (eg, sedation or blood pressure). Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of olanzapine for ER injectable suspension by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness are included in the REMS. How was the 3-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure the REMS requirements allow for seamless care during transitions, particularly when clinicians are on vacation.

Continue to: Recommendations for esketamine REMS

Ensure the REMS includes patient-specific adjustments to allow flexibility for post­administration monitoring. Specific patient groups may have differential access to certain types of facilities, transportation, or other resources. For example, consider the administration of esketamine by a mobile treatment team with an adequate protocol (eg, via videoconferencing or phone calls).

Ensure actions with peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating efficacy/effectiveness of requirements are included in the REMS. How was the 2-hour cut-point determined? Has it been reevaluated?

Ensure that the REMS meet all standards of the DEA, with a single system that accommodates normal health care professional workflow.

A summary of the findings

Overall, the REMS programs for these 3 medications were positively perceived for raising awareness of safe medication use for clinicians and patients. Monitoring patients for safety concerns is important and REMS requirements provide accountability.

Continue to: The use of a single shared...

The use of a single shared REMS system for documenting requirements for clozapine (compared to separate systems for each manufacturer) was a positive move forward in implementation. The focus group welcomed the increased awareness of benign ethnic neutropenia as a result of this condition being incorporated in the revised monitoring requirements of the clozapine REMS.

Focus group participants raised the issue of the real-world efficiency of the REMS programs (reduced access and increased clinician workload) vs the benefits (patient safety). They noted that excessive workload could lead to clinicians becoming unwilling to use a medication that requires a REMS. Clinician workload may be further compromised when REMS logistics disrupt the normal workflow and transitions of care between clinicians or settings. This latter aspect is of particular concern for clozapine.

The complexities of the registration and reporting system for olanzapine for ER injectable suspension and the lack of clarity about monitoring were noted to have discouraged the opening of treatment sites. This scarcity of sites may make clinicians hesitant to use this medication, and instead opt for alternative treatments in patients who may be appropriate candidates.

There has also been limited growth of esketamine treatment sites, especially in comparison to ketamine treatment sites.^11-14 Esketamine is FDA-approved for treatment-resistant depression in adults and for depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Ketamine is not FDA-approved for treating depression but is being used off-label to treat this disorder.¹⁵ The FDA determined that ketamine does not require a REMS to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks for its approved indications as an anesthetic agent, anesthesia-inducing agent, or supplement to anesthesia. Since ketamine has no REMS requirements, there may be a lower burden for its use. Thus, clinicians are treating patients for depression with this medication without needing to comply with a REMS.¹⁶

Technology plays a role in workload burden, and integrating health care processes within current workflow systems, such as using electronic patient health records and pharmacy systems, is recommended. The FDA has been exploring technologies to facilitate the completion of REMS requirements, including mandatory education within the prescribers’ and pharmacists’ workflow.¹⁷ This is a complex task that requires multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives and incentives to align.

Continue to: The data collected for the REMS...

The data collected for the REMS program belongs to the medication’s manufacturer. Current regulations do not require manufacturers to make this data available to qualified scientific researchers. A regulatory mandate to establish data sharing methods would improve transparency and enhance efforts to better understand the outcomes of the REMS programs.

A few caveats

Both the overarching and medication-specific recommendations were based on a small number of participants’ discussions related to clozapine, olanzapine for ER injectable suspension, and esketamine. These recommendations do not include other medications with REMS that are used to treat psychiatric disorders, such as loxapine, buprenorphine ER, and buprenorphine transmucosal products. Larger-scale qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand health care professionals’ perspectives. Lastly, some of the recommendations outlined in this article are beyond the current purview or authority of the FDA and may require legislative or regulatory action to implement.

Bottom Line

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs are designed to help reduce the occurrence and/or severity of serious risks or to inform decision-making. However, REMS requirements may adversely impact patient access to certain REMS medications and clinician burden. Health care professionals can provide informed recommendations for improving the REMS programs for clozapine, olanzapine for extended-release injectable suspension, and esketamine.

Related Resources

• FDA. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about REMS. www.fda.gov/drugs/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems/frequently-asked-questions-faqs-about-rems

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine extended-release • Sublocade
Buprenorphine transmucosal • Subutex, Suboxone
Clozapine • Clozaril
Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Loxapine • Adasuve
Olanzapine extended-release injectable suspension • Zyprexa Relprevv