Depression

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Dysregulated stress systems may help explain why childhood trauma has such a dramatic and enduring psychiatric impact, new research suggests.

“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Pauline Anderson

“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.

The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
 

Elevated cortisol, inflammation

The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.

Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.

Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.

Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.

In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.

The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.

Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.

When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.

Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”

Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).

“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”

And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
 

Personalized interventions

Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”

Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.

Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.

“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

WASHINGTON – Dysregulated stress systems may help explain why childhood trauma has such a dramatic and enduring psychiatric impact, new research suggests.

“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Pauline Anderson

“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.

The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
 

Elevated cortisol, inflammation

The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.

Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.

Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.

Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.

In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.

The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.

Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.

When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.

Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”

Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).

“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”

And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
 

Personalized interventions

Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”

Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.

Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.

“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

WASHINGTON – Dysregulated stress systems may help explain why childhood trauma has such a dramatic and enduring psychiatric impact, new research suggests.

“We already knew childhood trauma is associated with the later development of depressive and anxiety disorders, but it’s been unclear what makes sufferers of early trauma more likely to develop these psychiatric conditions,” study investigator Erika Kuzminskaite, PhD candidate, department of psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Pauline Anderson

“The evidence now points to unbalanced stress systems as a possible cause of this vulnerability, and now the most important question is, how we can develop preventive interventions,” she added.

The findings were presented as part of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Anxiety & Depression conference.
 

Elevated cortisol, inflammation

The study included 2,779 adults from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Two thirds of participants were female.

Participants retrospectively reported childhood trauma, defined as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse or emotional or physical neglect, before the age of 18 years. Severe trauma was defined as multiple types or increased frequency of abuse.

Of the total cohort, 48% reported experiencing some childhood trauma – 21% reported severe trauma, 27% reported mild trauma, and 42% reported no childhood trauma.

Among those with trauma, 89% had a current or remitted anxiety or depressive disorder, and 11% had no psychiatric sequelae. Among participants who reported no trauma, 68% had a current or remitted disorder, and 32% had no psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, researchers assessed markers of major bodily stress systems, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the immune-inflammatory system, and the autonomic nervous system (ANS). They examined these markers separately and cumulatively.

In one model, investigators found that levels of cortisol and inflammation were significantly elevated in those with severe childhood trauma compared to those with no childhood trauma. The effects were largest for the cumulative markers for HPA-axis, inflammation, and all stress system markers (Cohen’s d = 0.23, 0.12, and 0.25, respectively). There was no association with ANS markers.

The results were partially explained by lifestyle, said Ms. Kuzminskaite, who noted that people with severe childhood trauma tend to have a higher body mass index, smoke more, and have other unhealthy habits that may represent a “coping” mechanism for trauma.

Those who experienced childhood trauma also have higher rates of other disorders, including asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Ms. Kuzminskaite noted that people with childhood trauma have at least double the risk of cancer in later life.

When researchers adjusted for lifestyle factors and chronic conditions, the association for cortisol was reduced and that for inflammation disappeared. However, the cumulative inflammatory markers remained significant.

Another model examined lipopolysaccharide-stimulated (LPS) immune-inflammatory markers by childhood trauma severity. This provides a more “dynamic” measure of stress systems than looking only at static circulating levels in the blood, as was done in the first model, said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

“These levels should theoretically be more affected by experiences such as childhood trauma and they are also less sensitive to lifestyle.”

Here, researchers found significant positive associations with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, after adjusting for lifestyle and health-related covariates (cumulative index d = 0.19).

“Almost all people with childhood trauma, especially severe trauma, had LPS-stimulated cytokines upregulated,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite. “So again, there is this dysregulation of immune system functioning in these subjects.”

And again, the strongest effect was for the cumulative index of all cytokines, she said.
 

Personalized interventions

Ms. Kuzminskaite noted the importance of learning the impact of early trauma on stress responses. “The goal is to eventually have personalized interventions for people with depression or anxiety related to childhood trauma, or even preventative interventions. If we know, for example, something is going wrong with a patient’s stress systems, we can suggest some therapeutic targets.”

Investigators in Amsterdam are examining the efficacy of mifepristone, which blocks progesterone and is used along with misoprostol for medication abortions and to treat high blood sugar. “The drug is supposed to reset the stress system functioning,” said Ms. Kuzminskaite.

It’s still important to target unhealthy lifestyle habits “that are really impacting the functioning of the stress systems,” she said. Lifestyle interventions could improve the efficacy of treatments for depression, for example, she added.

Luana Marques, PhD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said such research is important.

“It reveals the potentially extensive and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma on functioning. The findings underscore the importance of equipping at-risk and trauma-exposed youth with evidence-based skills for managing stress,” she said.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has released updated guidelines for treating anxiety and depression in adult cancer survivors.

Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.

“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.

The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?

After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.

The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
 

General management principals

All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”

Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.

For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.

When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.

Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
 

Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.

Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.

The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.

Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.

“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”

Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.

And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.

Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”

And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.

Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.

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

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has released updated guidelines for treating anxiety and depression in adult cancer survivors.

Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.

“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.

The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?

After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.

The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
 

General management principals

All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”

Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.

For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.

When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.

Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
 

Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.

Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.

The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.

Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.

“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”

Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.

And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.

Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”

And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.

Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.

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

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has released updated guidelines for treating anxiety and depression in adult cancer survivors.

Since the last guidelines, published in 2014, screening and assessment for depression and anxiety have improved, and a large new evidence base has emerged. To ensure the most up-to-date recommendations, a group of experts spanning psychology, psychiatry, medical and surgical oncology, internal medicine, and nursing convened to review the current literature on managing depression and anxiety. The review included 61 studies – 16 meta-analyses, 44 randomized controlled trials, and one systematic review – published between 2013 and 2021.

“The purpose of this guideline update is to gather and examine the evidence published since the 2014 guideline ... [with a] focus on management and treatment only.” The overall goal is to provide “the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity” for patients with cancer, the experts write.

The new clinical practice guideline addresses the following question: What are the recommended treatment approaches in the management of anxiety and/or depression in survivors of adult cancer?

After an extensive literature search and analysis, the study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The expert panel’s recommendations fell into three broad categories – general management principles, treatment and care options for depressive symptoms, and treatment and care options for anxiety symptoms – with the guidelines for managing depression and anxiety largely mirroring each other.

The authors caution, however, that the guidelines “were developed in the context of mental health care being available and may not be applicable within other resource settings.”
 

General management principals

All patients with cancer, along with their caregivers, family members, or trusted confidants, should be offered information and resources on depression and anxiety. The panel gave this a “strong” recommendation but provided the caveat that the “information should be culturally informed and linguistically appropriate and can include a conversation between clinician and patient.”

Clinicians should select the most effective and least intensive intervention based on symptom severity when selecting treatment – what the panelists referred to as a stepped-care model. History of psychiatric diagnoses or substance use as well as prior responses to mental health treatment are some of the factors that may inform treatment choice.

For patients experiencing both depression and anxiety symptoms, treatment of depressive symptoms should be prioritized.

When referring a patient for further evaluation or care, clinicians “should make every effort to reduce barriers and facilitate patient follow-through,” the authors write. And health care professionals should regularly assess the treatment responses for patients receiving psychological or pharmacological interventions.

Overall, the treatments should be “supervised by a psychiatrist, and primary care or oncology providers work collaboratively with a nurse care manager to provide psychological interventions and monitor treatment compliance and outcomes,” the panelists write. “This type of collaborative care is found to be superior to usual care and is more cost-effective than face-to-face and pharmacologic treatment for depression.”
 

Treatment and care options for depressive and anxiety symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe depression symptoms, the panelists again stressed that clinicians should provide “culturally informed and linguistically appropriate information.” This information may include the frequency and symptoms of depression as well as signs these symptoms may be getting worse, with contact information for the medical team provided.

Among patients with moderate symptoms, clinicians can offer patients a range of individual or group therapy options, including cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or structured physical activity and exercise. For patients with severe symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer individual therapy with one of these four treatment options: CBT, behavioral activation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, or interpersonal therapy.

The panelists offered almost identical recommendations for patients with anxiety, except mindfulness-based stress reduction was an option for patients with severe symptoms.

Clinicians can also provide pharmacologic options to treat depression or anxiety in certain patients, though the panelists provided the caveat that evidence for pharmacologic management is weak.

“These guidelines make no recommendations about any specific pharmacologic regimen being better than another,” the experts wrote. And “patients should be warned of potential harm or adverse effects.”

Overall, the panelists noted that, as highlighted in the 2014 ASCO guideline, the updated version continues to stress the importance of providing education on coping with stress, anxiety, and depression.

And “for individuals with elevated symptoms, validation and normalizing patients’ experiences is crucial,” the panelists write.

Although the timing of screening is not the focus of this updated review, the experts recognized that “how and when patients with cancer and survivors are screened are important determinants of timely management of anxiety and depression.”

And unlike the prior guideline, “pharmacotherapy is not recommended as a first-line treatment, neither alone nor in combination,” the authors say.

Overall, the panelists emphasize how widespread the mental health care crisis is and that problems accessing mental health care remain. “The choice of intervention to offer patients facing such obstacles should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account availability, accessibility, patient preference, likelihood of adverse events, adherence, and cost,” the experts conclude.

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

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

A growing number of women ask about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy.

The last several decades have brought an increasing level of comfort with respect to antidepressant use during pregnancy, which derives from several factors.

First, it’s been well described that there’s an increased risk of relapse and morbidity associated with discontinuation of antidepressants proximate to pregnancy, particularly in women with histories of recurrent disease (JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80[5]:441-50 and JAMA. 2006;295[5]:499-507).

Second, there’s an obvious increased confidence about using antidepressants during pregnancy given the robust reproductive safety data about antidepressants with respect to both teratogenesis and risk for organ malformation. Other studies also fail to demonstrate a relationship between fetal exposure to antidepressants and risk for subsequent development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism. These latter studies have been reviewed extensively in systematic reviews of meta-analyses addressing this question.

However, there are women who, as they approach the question of antidepressant use during pregnancy, would prefer a nonpharmacologic approach to managing depression in the setting of either a planned pregnancy, or sometimes in the setting of acute onset of depressive symptoms during pregnancy. Other women are more comfortable with the data in hand regarding the reproductive safety of antidepressants and continue antidepressants that have afforded emotional well-being, particularly if the road to well-being or euthymia has been a long one.

Still, we at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Women’s Mental Health along with multidisciplinary colleagues with whom we engage during our weekly Virtual Rounds community have observed a growing number of women asking about nonpharmacologic approaches for either the treatment of acute perinatal depression or for relapse prevention during pregnancy. They ask about these options for personal reasons, regardless of what we may know (and what we may not know) about existing pharmacologic interventions. In these scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that it is not about what we as clinicians necessarily know about these medicines per se that drives treatment, but rather about the private calculus that women and their partners apply about risk and benefit of pharmacologic treatment during pregnancy.
 

Nonpharmacologic treatment options

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and behavioral activation are therapies all of which have an evidence base with respect to their effectiveness for either the acute treatment of both depression (and perinatal depression specifically) or for mitigating risk for depressive relapse (MBCT). Several investigations are underway evaluating digital apps that utilize MBCT and CBT in these patient populations as well.

New treatments for which we have none or exceedingly sparse data to support use during pregnancy are neurosteroids. We are asked all the time about the use of neurosteroids such as brexanolone or zuranolone during pregnancy. Given the data on effectiveness of these agents for treatment of postpartum depression, the question about use during pregnancy is intuitive. But at this point in time, absent data, their use during pregnancy cannot be recommended.

With respect to newer nonpharmacologic approaches that have been looked at for treatment of major depressive disorder, the Food and Drug Administration has approved transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a noninvasive form of neuromodulating therapy that use magnetic pulses to stimulate specific regions of the brain that have been implicated in psychiatric illness.

While there are no safety concerns that have been noted about use of TMS, the data regarding its use during pregnancy are still relatively limited, but it has been used to treat certain neurologic conditions during pregnancy. We now have a small randomized controlled study using TMS during pregnancy and multiple small case series suggesting a signal of efficacy in women with perinatal major depressive disorder. Side effects of TMS use during pregnancy have included hypotension, which has sometimes required repositioning of subjects, particularly later in pregnancy. Unlike electroconvulsive therapy, (ECT), often used when clinicians have exhausted other treatment options, TMS has no risk of seizure associated with its use.

TMS is now entering into the clinical arena in a more robust way. In certain settings, insurance companies are reimbursing for TMS treatment more often than was the case previously, making it a more viable option for a larger number of patients. There are also several exciting newer protocols, including theta burst stimulation, a new form of TMS treatment with less of a time commitment, and which may be more cost effective. However, data on this modality of treatment remain limited.
 

Where TMS fits in treating depression during pregnancy

The real question we are getting asked in clinic, both in person and during virtual rounds with multidisciplinary colleagues from across the world, is where TMS might fit into the algorithm for treating of depression during pregnancy. Where is it appropriate to be thinking about TMS in pregnancy, and where should it perhaps be deferred at this moment (and where is it not appropriate)?

It is probably of limited value (and possibly of potential harm) to switch to TMS in patients who have severe recurrent major depression and who are on maintenance antidepressant, and who believe that a switch to TMS will be effective for relapse prevention; there are simply no data currently suggesting that TMS can be used as a relapse prevention tool, unlike certain other nonpharmacologic interventions.

What about managing relapse of major depressive disorder during pregnancy in a patient who had responded to an antidepressant? We have seen patients with histories of severe recurrent disease who are managed well on antidepressants during pregnancy who then have breakthrough symptoms and inquire about using TMS as an augmentation strategy. Although we don’t have clear data supporting the use of TMS as an adjunct in that setting, in those patients, one could argue that a trial of TMS may be appropriate – as opposed to introducing multiple medicines to recapture euthymia during pregnancy where the benefit is unclear and where more exposure is implied by having to do potentially multiple trials.

Other patients with new onset of depression during pregnancy who, for personal reasons, will not take an antidepressant or pursue other nonpharmacologic interventions will frequently ask about TMS. It’s important to at least have a potential referral source in mind given the increased popularity of TMS and the increased availability of TMS in the community in various centers – as opposed to previously where it was more restricted to large academic medical centers.

I think it is a time of excitement in reproductive psychiatry where we have a growing number of tools to treat perinatal depression – from medications to digital tools. These tools – either alone or in combination with medicines that we’ve been using for years – are able to afford women a greater number of choices with respect to the treatment of perinatal depression than was available even 5 years ago. That takes us closer to an ability to use interventions that truly combine patient wishes and “precision perinatal psychiatry,” where we can match effective therapies with the individual clinical presentations and wishes with which patients come to us.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Researchers have identified four distinct clinical profiles for young people at risk for serious self-harm. The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.

The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.

The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.

Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.

Findings were published online in Pediatrics.

The risk groups were described as follows:

• Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
• Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
• High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
• Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.

Differences by sex

The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.

“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.

The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”

Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.

Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
 

Gap closing between young children, adolescents

Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.

Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.

“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”

Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.

The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.

Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.

Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
 

Results are preliminary

The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.

“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.

They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.

The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers have identified four distinct clinical profiles for young people at risk for serious self-harm. The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.

The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.

The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.

Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.

Findings were published online in Pediatrics.

The risk groups were described as follows:

• Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
• Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
• High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
• Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.

Differences by sex

The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.

“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.

The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”

Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.

Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
 

Gap closing between young children, adolescents

Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.

Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.

“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”

Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.

The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.

Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.

Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
 

Results are preliminary

The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.

“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.

They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.

The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

Researchers have identified four distinct clinical profiles for young people at risk for serious self-harm. The profiles were developed from their study of children and adolescents aged 5-18 years who had been admitted with a neuropsychiatric event to two children’s hospitals.

The researchers used Bayesian regression to identify the profiles developed from 32 covariates: age, sex, and 30 mental health diagnostic groups from April 2016 to March 2020. The profiles include low-, moderate-, high- and very-high-risk categories.

The study, led by Mert Sekmen with the division of hospital medicine at Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital, and a student at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., included 1,098 children, average age 14. Of those, 406 (37%) were diagnosed with a self-harm event.

Traditionally, single diagnoses have been linked with risk of self-harm, independent of other comorbidities, but this study gauges risk for a set of diagnoses.

Findings were published online in Pediatrics.

The risk groups were described as follows:

• Low risk. (45% of the study population; median risk of 0.04 (interquartile range, 0.03-0.04; odds ratio, 0.08). The group included children aged 5-9 years with a non–mental health diagnosis, and without mood, behavioral, psychotic, developmental, trauma, or substance-related disorders.
• Moderate risk. (8% of the study group). This group had the same risk as the baseline risk for the entire cohort (37%) and served as the reference group, with a median risk of 0.30 (IQR, 0.27-0.33). This profile was characterized by several mood disorders and behavioral disorders but without depressive disorders.
• High risk. (36%) This group had an average risk of 0.69 (IQR, 0.67-0.71; OR, 5.09). This profile included female adolescents ages 14-17 with depression and anxiety in conjunction with substance- and trauma-related disorders. Personality and eating disorders were significant in this group. Importantly, the authors wrote, the high-risk group did not include behavioral and developmental disorders.
• Very high risk. (11%) The very-high-risk profile had the highest average risk of 0.79 (IQR, 0.73-0.79; OR, 7.21) and included male children aged 10-13. This profile, like the high-risk profile, included anxiety and depressive disorders. The very-high-risk profile differed from the high-risk with its inclusion of bipolar disorder; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and trauma-related and developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability, along with conduct disorders. Neither the high- nor the very-high-risk profiles included a concurrent non–mental health diagnosis.

Differences by sex

The authors explained some of the differences by sex. They noted that in a study of children aged 5-11, deaths by suicide were more prevalent among boys. A mental health diagnosis was identified in 31%, the most common being ADHD, depression, and other unspecified co-occurring disorders.

“The very-high-risk group also reflects a concerning rise in death by suicide among (males) aged 10-13, who have seen rates nearly triple from 2007 to 2017,” the authors wrote.

The authors pointed out that, although incidence of anxiety and depressive disorders between male and female children is much the same before adolescence, “female adolescents are twice as likely to be diagnosed with either disorder during adolescence. Girls also have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts after puberty.”

Eating disorders were also included in the high-risk profile. A study showed that emergency department visits for adolescent girls attempting suicide were 51% higher from February to March 2021, compared with the same period in the pre-COVID-19 year 2019.

Jason Lewis, PhD, psychologist and section director of mood, anxiety and trauma disorders in the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not part of the research team, said the “constellations of risk factors put into acuity levels” helps to better project risk than knowing the risk associated with a particular diagnosis.
 

Gap closing between young children, adolescents

Dr. Lewis said he was surprised by the young age of 10-13 among the boys in the highest-risk category. That speaks to the differences from standard thinking this paper points out, he said. “Generally, we think about adolescents as being at the highest risk of suicide death and suicidal behavior,” he said.

Dr. Lewis said it’s important to note that the authors acknowledge these profiles are not static. He gave an example that the rate of suicide deaths among females is rising.

“As things like that change, some of these risk profiles will change as well.”

Dr. Lewis said the profiles may be especially helpful to medical providers in emergency departments or those making discharge decisions who don’t have an ongoing relationship with a patient.

The information could also help educators and lay people, “think about suicide in the youth population in ways we don’t normally think about it,” Dr. Lewis said.

Covariates considered for profiles were determined through expert consensus between pediatric psychiatrists, general pediatricians, pediatric hospitalists, pediatric complex care physicians, and pediatric pharmacoepidemiologists.

Age was broken into three groups: 5-9 years, 10-13 years, and 14-17 years based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting and previous studies that showed significant increases in suicide rates in these age-based subgroups.
 

Results are preliminary

The authors note that the profiles were developed using data from 1,000 children with neuropsychiatric complaints at two academic children’s hospitals and are thus preliminary.

“Future studies should focus on validating these risk profiles in a larger, more heterogeneous population of children and adolescents,” the authors write.

They also acknowledge that they were not able to include factors such as medication use, previous suicidal behavior, and family and social support, which also factor into risk.

The study authors and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

Advances in the understanding of neurobiological and neuro­psychiatric pathophysiology have opened new avenues of treatment for psychiatric patients. Historically, with a few exceptions, most psychiatric medications have been administered orally. However, many of the newer treatments require some form of specialized administration because they cannot be taken orally due to their chemical property (such as aducanumab); because there is the need to produce stable blood levels of the medication (such as brexanolone); because oral administration greatly diminished efficacy (such as oral vs IV magnesium or scopolamine), or because the treatment is focused on specific brain structures. This need for specialized administration has created a subspecialty called interventional psychiatry.

Part 1 of this 2-part article provides an overview of 1 type of interventional psychiatry: parenterally administered medications, including those administered via IV. We also describe 3 other interventional approaches to treatment: stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin (BT) injections, and trigger point injections. In Part 2 we will review interventional approaches that involve neuromodulation.

Parenteral medications in psychiatry

In general, IV and IM medications can be more potent that oral medications due to their overall faster onset of action and higher blood concentrations. These more invasive forms of administration can have significant limitations, such as a risk of infection at the injection site, the need to be administered in a medical setting, additional time, and patient discomfort.

Table 1 lists short-acting injectable medications used in psychiatry, and Table 2 lists long-acting injectable medications. Parenteral administration of antipsychotics is performed to alleviate acute agitation or for chronic symptom control. These medications generally are not considered interventional treatments, but could be classified as such due to their invasive nature.¹ Furthermore, inhalable loxapine—which is indicated for managing acute agitation—requires a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program consisting of 2 hours observation and monitoring of respiratory status.^2,3 Other indications for parenteral treatments include IM naltrexone extended release⁴ and subcutaneous injections of buprenorphine extended release⁵ and risperidone.⁶

IV administration

Most IV treatments described in this article are not FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment. Despite this, many interventional psychiatric treatments are part of clinical practice. IV infusion of ketamine is the most widely known and most researched of these. Table 3 lists other IV treatments that could be used as psychiatric treatment.

Ketamine

Since the early 1960s, ketamine has been used as a surgical anesthetic for animals. In the United States, it was approved for human surgical anesthesia in 1970. It was widely used during the Vietnam War due to its lack of inhibition of respiratory drive; medical staff first noticed an improvement in depressive symptoms and the resolution of suicidal ideation in patients who received ketamine. This led to further research on ketamine, particularly to determine its application in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and other conditions.⁷ IV ketamine administration is most widely researched, but IM injections, intranasal sprays, and lozenges are also available. The dissociative properties of ketamine have led to its recreational use.⁸

Hypotheses for the mechanism of action of ketamine as an antidepressant include direct synaptic or extrasynaptic (GluN2B-selective), N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) inhibition, selectively greater inhibition of NMDARs localized on GABAergic (gamma-aminobutyric acid) interneurons, and the role of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid receptor activation. There are links between ketamine’s antidepressant actions and downstream mechanisms regulating synaptic plasticity, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor, eukaryotic elongation factor 2, mammalian target of rapamycin, and glycogen synthase kinase-3. Multiple other ketamine-associated mechanisms also have been described.^9,10 Action on the mu-opioid receptor is also known, possibly contributing to both antidepressant and anesthetic properties of ketamine.¹¹ Rapid onset of ketamine antidepressant action is especially valuable.¹²

Continue to: Ketamine is a schedule...

Ketamine is a schedule III medication with addictive properties. Delirium, panic attacks, hallucinations, nightmares, dysphoria, and paranoia may occur during and after use.¹³ Premedication with benzodiazepines, most notably lorazepam, is occasionally used to minimize ketamine’s adverse effects, but this generally is not recommended because doing so reduces ketamine’s antidepressant effects.¹⁴ Driving and operating heavy machinery is contraindicated after IV infusion. The usual protocol involves an IV infusion of ketamine 0.4 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg dosing over 1 hour. Doses between 0.4 mg/kg and 0.6 mg/kg are most common. Ketamine has a therapeutic window; doses >0.5 mg/kg are progressively less effective.¹⁵ Unlike the recommendation after esketamine administration, after receiving ketamine, patients remain in the care of their treatment team for <2 hours.

Esketamine, the S enantiomer of ketamine, was FDA-approved for TRD as an intranasal formulation. Esketamine is more commonly used than IV ketamine because it is FDA-approved and typically covered by insurance, but it may not be as effective.¹⁶ An economic analysis by Brendle et al¹⁷ suggested insurance companies would lower costs if they covered ketamine infusions vs intranasal esketamine.

Aducanumab and lecanemab

The most recent FDA-approved interventional agents are aducanumab and lecanemab, which are indicated for treating Alzheimer disease.^18,19 Both are human monoclonal antibodies that bind selectively and with high affinity to amyloid beta plaque aggregates and promote their removal by Fc receptor–mediated phagocytosis.²⁰

FDA approval of aducanumab and lecanemab was controversial. Initially, aducanumab’s safety monitoring board performed a futility analysis that suggested aducanumab was unlikely to separate from placebo, and the research was stopped.²¹ The manufacturer petitioned the FDA to consider the medication for accelerated approval on the basis of biomarker data showing that amyloid beta plaque aggregates become smaller. Current FDA approval is temporary to allow patients access to this potentially beneficial agent, but the manufacturer must supply clinical evidence that the reduction of amyloid beta plaques is associated with desirable changes in the course of Alzheimer disease, or risk losing the approval.

Lecanemab is also a human monoclonal antibody intended to remove amyloid beta plaques that was FDA-approved under the accelerated approval pathway.²² Unlike aducanumab, lecanemab demonstrated a statistically significant (although clinically imperceptible) reduction in the rate of cognitive decline; it did not show cognitive improvement.²³ Lecanemab also significantly reduced amyloid beta plaques.²³

Continue to: Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally...

Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally not covered by insurance and typically cost >$26,000 annually. Both are administered by IV infusion once a month. More monoclonal antibody medications for treating early Alzheimer disease are in the late stages of development, most notably donanebab.²⁴ Observations during clinical trials found that in the later stages of Alzheimer disease, forceful removal of plaques by the autoimmune process damages neurons, while in less dense deposits of early dementia such removal is not harmful to the cells and prevents amyloid buildup.

Brexanolone

Brexanolone is an aqueous formulation of allopregnanolone, a major metabolite of progesterone and a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors.²⁵ Its levels are maximal at the end of the third trimester of pregnancy and fall rapidly following delivery. Research showed a 3-day infusion was rapidly and significantly effective for treating postpartum depression²⁶ and brexanolone received FDA approval for this indication in March 2019.²⁷ However, various administrative, economic, insurance, and other hurdles make it difficult for patients to access this treatment. Despite its rapid onset of action (usually 48 hours), brexanolone takes an average of 15 days to go through the prior authorization process.²⁸ In addition to the need for prior authorization, the main impediment to the use of brexanolone is the 3-day infusion schedule, which greatly magnifies the cost but is partially circumvented by the availability of dedicated outpatient centers.

Magnesium

Magnesium is on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines.²⁹ There has been extensive research on the use of magnesium sulfate for psychiatric indications, especially for depression.³⁰ Magnesium functions similarly to calcium channel blockers by competitively blocking intracellular calcium channels, decreasing calcium availability, and inhibiting smooth muscle contractility.³¹ It also competes with calcium at the motor end plate, reducing excitation by inhibiting the release of acetylcholine.³² This property is used for high-dose IV magnesium treatment of impending preterm labor in obstetrics. Magnesium sulfate is the drug of choice in treating eclamptic seizures and preventing seizures in severe preeclampsia or gestational hypertension with severe features.³³ It is also used to treat torsade de pointes, severe asthma exacerbations, constipation, and barium poisoning.³⁴ Beneficial use in asthma treatment³⁵ and the treatment of migraine³⁶ have also been reported.

IV magnesium in myocardial infarction may be harmful,³⁷ though outside of acute cardiac events, magnesium is found to be safe.³⁸

Oral magnesium sulfate is a common over-the-counter anxiety remedy. As a general cell stabilizer (mediated by the reduction of intracellular calcium), magnesium is potentially beneficial outside of its muscle-relaxing properties, although muscle relaxing can benefit anxious patients. It is used to treat anxiety,³⁹ alcohol withdrawal,⁴⁰ and fear.⁴¹ Low magnesium blood levels are found in patients with depression, schizophrenia,⁴² and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.⁴³ However, it is important to note that the therapeutic effect of magnesium when treating anxiety and headache is independent of preinfusion magnesium blood levels.⁴³

Continue to: The efficacy of oral magnesium...

The efficacy of oral magnesium is not robust. However, IV administration has a pronounced beneficial effect as an abortive and preventative treatment in many patients with anxiety.⁴⁴

IV administration of magnesium can produce adverse effects, including flushing, sweating, hypotension, depressed reflexes, flaccid paralysis, hypothermia, circulatory collapse, and cardiac and CNS depression. These complications are very rare and dose-dependent.⁴⁵ Magnesium is excreted by the kidneys, and dosing must be decreased in patients with kidney failure. The most common adverse effect is local burning along the vein upon infusion; small doses of IV lidocaine can remedy this. Hot flashes are also common.⁴⁵

Various dosing strategies are available. In patients with anxiety, application dosing is based on the recommended preeclampsia IV dose of 4 g diluted in 250 mL of 5% dextrose. Much higher doses may be used in obstetrics. Unlike in obstetrics, for psychiatric indications, magnesium is administered over 60 to 90 minutes. Heart monitoring is recommended.

Scopolamine

Scopolamine is primarily used to relieve nausea, vomiting, and dizziness associated with motion sickness and recovery from anesthesia. It is also used in ophthalmology and in patients with excessive sweating. In off-label and experimental applications, scopolamine has been used in patients with TRD.⁴⁶

Scopolamine is an anticholinergic medication. It is a nonselective antagonist at muscarinic receptors.⁴⁷ Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) possess strong anticholinergic function. Newer generations of antidepressants were designed specifically not to have this function because it was believed to be an unwanted and potentially dangerous adverse effect. However, data suggest that anticholinergic action is important in decreasing depressive symptoms. Several hypotheses of anticholinergic effects on depression have been published since the 1970s. They include the cholinergic-adrenergic hypothesis,⁴⁸ acetylcholine predominance relative to adrenergic action hypothesis,⁴⁹ and insecticide poisoning observations.⁵⁰ Centrally acting physostigmine (but not peripherally acting neostigmine) was reported to control mania.^48,51 A genetic connection between the M2acetylcholine receptor in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder is also suggestive.⁵²

Continue to: Multiple animal studies show...

Multiple animal studies show direct improvement in mobility and a decrease in despair upon introducing anticholinergic substances.^53-55 The cholinergic theory of depression has been studied in several controlled clinical human studies.^56,57 Use of a short-acting anticholinergic glycopyrrolate during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may contribute to the procedure’s efficacy.

Human research shows scopolamine has a higher efficacy as an antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication in women than in men,⁵⁸ possibly because estrogen increases the activity of choline acetyltransferase and release of acetylcholine.^59,60 M2receptors mediate estrogen influence on the NMDAR, which may explain the anticholinergic effects of depression treatments in women.⁶¹

Another proposed mechanism of action of scopolamine is a potent inhibition of the NMDAR.⁶² Rapid treatments of depression may be based on this mechanism. Examples of such treatments include IV ketamine and sleep deprivation.⁶³ IV scopolamine shows potency in treating MDD and bipolar depression. This treatment should be reserved for patients who do not respond to or are not candidates for other usual treatment modalities of MDD and for the most severe cases. Scopolamine is 30 times more potent than amitriptyline in anticholinergic effect and reportedly produces sustained improvement in MDD.⁶⁴

Scopolamine has no black-box warnings. It has not been studied in pregnant women and is not recommended for use during pregnancy. Due to possible negative cardiovascular effects, a normal electrocardiogram is required before the start of treatment. Exercise caution in patients with glaucoma, benign prostatic enlargement, gastroparesis, unstable cardiovascular status, or severe renal impairment.

Treatment with scopolamine is not indicated for patients with myasthenia gravis, psychosis, or seizures. Patients must be off potassium for 3 days before beginning scopolamine treatment. Patients should consult with their cardiologist before having a scopolamine infusion. Adverse reactions may include psychosis, tachycardia, seizures, paralytic ileus, and glaucoma exacerbation. The most common adverse effects of scopolamine infusion treatment include drowsiness, dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness, and dizziness. Due to possible drowsiness, operating motor vehicles or heavy machinery must be avoided on the day of treatment.⁶⁵ Overall, the adverse effects of scopolamine are preventable and manageable, and its antidepressant efficacy is noteworthy.⁶⁶

Continue to: Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions...

Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions of 4 mcg/kg separated by 3 to 5 days.⁵⁶ It is possible to have a longer treatment course if the patient experiences only partial improvement. Repeated courses or maintenance treatment (similar to ECT maintenance) are utilized in some patients if indicated. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Clomipramine

Clomipramine, a TCA, acts as a preferential inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine uptake and has proven effective in managing depression, TRD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).⁶⁷ Although this medication has reported treatment benefits for patients with phobia, panic disorder,¹⁵ chronic pain,⁶⁸ Tourette syndrome,⁶⁹ premature ejaculation, anorexia nervosa,⁷⁰ cataplexy,⁴⁹ and enuresis,⁷¹ it is FDA-approved only for the treatment of OCD.⁷² Clomipramine may also be beneficial for pain and headache, possibly because of its anti-inflammatory action.⁷³ The anticholinergic effects of clomipramine may add to its efficacy in depression.

The pathophysiology of MDD is connected to hyperactivity of the HPA axis and elevated cortisol levels. Higher clomipramine plasma levels show a linear correlation with lower cortisol secretion and levels, possibly aiding in the treatment of MDD and anxiety.⁷⁴ The higher the blood level, the more pronounced clomipramine’s therapeutic effect across multiple domains.⁷⁵

IV infusion of clomipramine produces the highest concentration in the shortest time, but overall, research does not necessarily support increased efficacy of IV over oral administration. There is evidence suggesting that subgroups of patients with severe, treatment-refractory OCD may benefit from IV agents and research suggests a faster onset of action.⁷⁶ Faster onset of symptom relief is the basis for IV clomipramine use. In patients with OCD, it can take several months for oral medications to produce therapeutic benefits; not all patients can tolerate this. In such scenarios, IV administration may be considered, though it is not appropriate for routine use until more research is available. Patients with treatment-resistant OCD who have exhausted other means of symptom relief may also be candidates for IV treatment.

The adverse effects of IV clomipramine are no different from oral use, though they may be more pronounced. A pretreatment cardiac exam is desirable because clomipramine, like other TCAs, may be cardiotoxic. The anticholinergic adverse effects of TCAs are well known to clinicians⁷⁷ and partially explained in the scopolamine section of this article. It is not advisable to combine clomipramine with other TCAs or serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clomipramine also should not be combined with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, though such a combination was reported in medical literature.⁷⁸ Combination with antiarrhythmics such as lidocaine or opioids such as fentanyl or and tramadol is highly discouraged (fentanyl and tramadol also have serotonergic effects).⁷⁹

Continue to: Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available...

Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available and must be sterilely compounded. The usual course of treatment is a series of 3 infusions: 150 mg on Day 1, 200 mg on Day 2 or Day 3, and 250 mg on Day 3, Day 4, or Day 5, depending on tolerability. A protocol with a 50 mg/d starting dose and titration up to a maximum dose of 225 mg/d over 5 to 7 days has been suggested for inpatient settings.⁶⁷ Titration to 250 mg is more common.⁸⁰

A longer series may be performed, but this increases the likelihood of adverse effects. Booster and maintenance treatments are also completed when required. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Vortioxetine and citalopram

IV treatment of depression with vortioxetine and citalopram has been explored but has not yet taken hold in clinical psychiatry.^81,82

Injections and blocks

Three interventional approaches to treatment that possess psychotherapeutic potential include stellate ganglion blocks (SGBs), glabellar BT injections, and trigger point injections (TPIs). None of these are FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment.

Stellate ganglion blocks

The sympathetic nervous system is involved in autonomic hyperarousal and is at the core of posttraumatic symptomatology.⁸³ Insomnia, anxiety, irritability, hypervigilance, and other excitatory CNS events are connected to the sympathetic nervous system and amygdala activation is commonly observed in those exposed to extreme stress or traumatic events.⁸⁴

Continue to: SGBs were first performed 100 years ago...

SGBs were first performed 100 years ago and reported to have beneficial psychiatric effects at the end of the 1940s. In 1998 in Finland, improvement of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was observed accidentally via thoracic level spine blocks.⁸⁵ In 2006, cervical level sympathetic blocks were shown to be effective for PTSD symptom control.⁸⁶ By the end of 2010, Veterans Administration hospitals adopted SGBs to treat veterans with PTSD.^87,88 The first multisite, randomized clinical trial of SGB for PTSD confirmed multiple previous reports of treatment efficacy. Specifically, 2 SGB treatments 2 weeks apart effectively reduced total symptom severity scores over 8 weeks.⁸⁷

Since the stellate ganglion is connected to the amygdala, SGB has also been assessed for treating anxiety and depression.^89,90 Outside of PTSD, SGBs are used to treat complex regional pain syndrome,⁹¹ phantom limb pain, trigeminal neuralgia,⁹² intractable angina,⁹³ and postherpetic neuralgia in the head, neck, upper chest, or arms.⁹⁴ The procedure consists of an injection of a local anesthetic through a 25-gauge needle into the stellate sympathetic ganglion at the C6 or C7 vertebral levels. An injection into C6 is considered safer because of specific cervical spine anatomy. Ideally, fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound is used to guide needle insertion.⁹⁵

A severe drop in blood pressure may be associated with SGBs and is mitigated by IV hydration. Other adverse effects include red eyes, drooping of the eyelids, nasal congestion, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing, a sensation of a “lump” in the throat, and a sensation of warmth or tingling in the arm or hand. Bilateral SGB is contraindicated due to the danger of respiratory arrest.⁹⁶

Glabellar BT injections

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT) injection was first approved for therapeutic use in 1989 for eye muscle disorders such as strabismus⁹⁷ and blepharospasm.⁹⁸ It was later approved for several other indications, including cosmetic use, hyperhidrosis, migraine prevention, neurogenic bladder disorder, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and spasticity.^99-104 BT is used off-label for achalasia and sialorrhea.^105,106 Its mechanism of action is primarily attributed to muscle paralysis by blocking presynaptic acetylcholine release into neuromuscular junctions.¹⁰⁷

Facial BT injections are usually administered for cosmetic purposes, but smoothing forehead wrinkles and frown lines (the glabellar region of the face) both have antidepressant effects.¹⁰⁸ BT injections into the glabellar region also demonstrate antidepressant effects, particularly in patients with comorbid migraines and MDD.¹⁰⁹ Early case observations supported the independent benefit of the toxin on MDD when the toxin was injected into the glabellar region.^110,111 The most frequent protocol involves injections in the procerus and corrugator muscles.

Continue to: The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis...

The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis has dominated thinking about the mood-improving effects of BT. The theory is that blocking muscular expression of sadness (especially in the face) interrupts the experience of sadness; therefore, depression subsides.^112,113 However, BT injections in the muscles involved in the smile and an expression of positive emotions (lateral part of the musculus orbicularis oculi) have been associated with increased MDD scores.¹¹⁴ Thus, the mechanism clearly involves more than the cosmetic effect, since facial muscle injections in rats also have antidepressant effects.¹¹⁵

The use of progressive muscle relaxation is well-established in psychiatric treatment. The investigated conditions of increased muscle tone, especially torticollis and blepharospasm, are associated with MDD, and it may be speculated that proprioceptive feedback from the affected muscles may be causally involved in this association.^116-118 Activity of the corrugator muscle has been positively associated with increased amygdala activity.¹¹⁹ This suggests a potential similar mechanism to that hypothesized for SGB.

Alternatively, BT is commonly used to treat chronic conditions that may contribute to depression; its success in relieving the underlying problem may indirectly relieve MDD. Thus, in a postmarketing safety evaluation of BT, MDD was demonstrated 40% to 88% less often by patients treated with BT for 6 of the 8 conditions and injection sites, such as in spasms and spasticity of arms and legs, torticollis and neck pain, and axilla and palm injections for hyperhidrosis. In a parotid and submandibular glands BT injection subcohort, no patients experienced depressive symptoms.¹²⁰

Medicinal BT is generally considered safe. The most common adverse effects are hypersensitivity, injection site reactions, and other adverse effects specific to the injection site.¹²¹ Additionally, the cosmetic effects are transient, given the nature of the medication.

Trigger point injections

TPIs in the neck and shoulders are frequently used to treat tension headaches and various referred pain locations in the face and arms. Tension and depression frequently overlap in clinical practice.¹²² Relieving muscle tension (with resulting trigger points) improves muscle function and mood.

Continue to: The higher the number of active...

The higher the number of active trigger points (TPs), the greater the physical burden of headache and the higher the anxiety level. Gender differences in TP prevalence and TPI efficacy have been described in the literature. For example, the number of active TPs seems directly associated with anxiety levels in women but not in men.¹²³ Although TPs appear to be more closely associated with anxiety than depression,¹²⁴ depression associated with muscle tension does improve with TPIs. European studies have demonstrated a decrease in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale following TPI treatment.¹²⁵ The effect may be indirect, as when a patient’s pain is relieved, sleep and other psychiatric symptoms improve.¹²⁶

A randomized controlled trial by Castro Sánchez et al¹²⁷ demonstrated that dry needling therapy in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) showed improvements in pain pressure thresholds, body pain, vitality, and social function, as well as total FMS symptoms, quality of sleep, anxiety, hospital anxiety and depression, general pain intensity, and fatigue.

Myofascial pain syndrome, catastrophizing, and muscle tension are common in patients with depression, anxiety, and somatization. Local TPI therapy aimed at inactivating pain generators is supported by moderate quality evidence. All manner of therapies have been described, including injection of saline, corticosteroids, local anesthetic agents, and dry needling. BT injections in chronic TPs are also practiced, though no specific injection therapy has been reliably shown to be more advantageous than another. The benefits of TPIs may be derived from the needle itself rather than from any specific substance injected. Stimulation of a local twitch response with direct needling of the TP appears of importance. There is no established consensus regarding the number of injection points, frequency of administration, and volume or type of injectate.¹²⁸

Adverse effects of TPIs relate to the nature of the invasive therapy, with the risk of tissue damage and bleeding. Pneumothorax risk is present with needle insertion at the neck and thorax.¹²⁹ Patients with diabetes may experience variations in blood sugar control if steroids are used.

Bottom Line

Interventional treatment modalities that may have a role in psychiatric treatment include IV administration of ketamine, aducanumab, lecanemab, brexanolone, magnesium, scopolamine, and clomipramine. Other interventional approaches include stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin injections, and trigger point injections.

Related Resources

• Dokucu ME, Janicak PG. Nontraditional therapies for treatment-resistant depression. Current Psychiatry. 2021; 20(9):38-43,49. doi:10.12788/cp.0166
• Kim J, Khoury R, Grossberg GT. Botulinum toxin: emerging psychiatric indications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):8-18.

Drug Brand Names

Aducanumab • Aduhelm
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Diazepam • Valium
Droperidol • Inapsine
Esketamine • Spravato
Fentanyl • Actiq
Fluphenazine decanoate • Modecate
Fluphenazine hydrochloride • Prolixin
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Haloperidol lactate • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lecanemab • Leqembi
Lidocaine • Xylocaine
Lorazepam • Ativan
Loxapine inhaled • Adasuve
Naltrexone • Vivitrol
Magnesium sulfate • Sulfamag
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
OnabotulinumtoxinA injection • Botox
Paliperidone • Invega Hafyera, Invega Sustenna, Invega Trinza
Rapamycin • Rapamune, Sirolimus
Risperidone • Perseris
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta, Rykindo
Scopolamine • Hyoscine
Tramadol • Conzip
Vortioxetine • Trintellix
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Advances in the understanding of neurobiological and neuro­psychiatric pathophysiology have opened new avenues of treatment for psychiatric patients. Historically, with a few exceptions, most psychiatric medications have been administered orally. However, many of the newer treatments require some form of specialized administration because they cannot be taken orally due to their chemical property (such as aducanumab); because there is the need to produce stable blood levels of the medication (such as brexanolone); because oral administration greatly diminished efficacy (such as oral vs IV magnesium or scopolamine), or because the treatment is focused on specific brain structures. This need for specialized administration has created a subspecialty called interventional psychiatry.

Part 1 of this 2-part article provides an overview of 1 type of interventional psychiatry: parenterally administered medications, including those administered via IV. We also describe 3 other interventional approaches to treatment: stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin (BT) injections, and trigger point injections. In Part 2 we will review interventional approaches that involve neuromodulation.

Parenteral medications in psychiatry

In general, IV and IM medications can be more potent that oral medications due to their overall faster onset of action and higher blood concentrations. These more invasive forms of administration can have significant limitations, such as a risk of infection at the injection site, the need to be administered in a medical setting, additional time, and patient discomfort.

Table 1 lists short-acting injectable medications used in psychiatry, and Table 2 lists long-acting injectable medications. Parenteral administration of antipsychotics is performed to alleviate acute agitation or for chronic symptom control. These medications generally are not considered interventional treatments, but could be classified as such due to their invasive nature.¹ Furthermore, inhalable loxapine—which is indicated for managing acute agitation—requires a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program consisting of 2 hours observation and monitoring of respiratory status.^2,3 Other indications for parenteral treatments include IM naltrexone extended release⁴ and subcutaneous injections of buprenorphine extended release⁵ and risperidone.⁶

IV administration

Most IV treatments described in this article are not FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment. Despite this, many interventional psychiatric treatments are part of clinical practice. IV infusion of ketamine is the most widely known and most researched of these. Table 3 lists other IV treatments that could be used as psychiatric treatment.

Ketamine

Since the early 1960s, ketamine has been used as a surgical anesthetic for animals. In the United States, it was approved for human surgical anesthesia in 1970. It was widely used during the Vietnam War due to its lack of inhibition of respiratory drive; medical staff first noticed an improvement in depressive symptoms and the resolution of suicidal ideation in patients who received ketamine. This led to further research on ketamine, particularly to determine its application in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and other conditions.⁷ IV ketamine administration is most widely researched, but IM injections, intranasal sprays, and lozenges are also available. The dissociative properties of ketamine have led to its recreational use.⁸

Hypotheses for the mechanism of action of ketamine as an antidepressant include direct synaptic or extrasynaptic (GluN2B-selective), N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) inhibition, selectively greater inhibition of NMDARs localized on GABAergic (gamma-aminobutyric acid) interneurons, and the role of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid receptor activation. There are links between ketamine’s antidepressant actions and downstream mechanisms regulating synaptic plasticity, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor, eukaryotic elongation factor 2, mammalian target of rapamycin, and glycogen synthase kinase-3. Multiple other ketamine-associated mechanisms also have been described.^9,10 Action on the mu-opioid receptor is also known, possibly contributing to both antidepressant and anesthetic properties of ketamine.¹¹ Rapid onset of ketamine antidepressant action is especially valuable.¹²

Continue to: Ketamine is a schedule...

Ketamine is a schedule III medication with addictive properties. Delirium, panic attacks, hallucinations, nightmares, dysphoria, and paranoia may occur during and after use.¹³ Premedication with benzodiazepines, most notably lorazepam, is occasionally used to minimize ketamine’s adverse effects, but this generally is not recommended because doing so reduces ketamine’s antidepressant effects.¹⁴ Driving and operating heavy machinery is contraindicated after IV infusion. The usual protocol involves an IV infusion of ketamine 0.4 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg dosing over 1 hour. Doses between 0.4 mg/kg and 0.6 mg/kg are most common. Ketamine has a therapeutic window; doses >0.5 mg/kg are progressively less effective.¹⁵ Unlike the recommendation after esketamine administration, after receiving ketamine, patients remain in the care of their treatment team for <2 hours.

Esketamine, the S enantiomer of ketamine, was FDA-approved for TRD as an intranasal formulation. Esketamine is more commonly used than IV ketamine because it is FDA-approved and typically covered by insurance, but it may not be as effective.¹⁶ An economic analysis by Brendle et al¹⁷ suggested insurance companies would lower costs if they covered ketamine infusions vs intranasal esketamine.

Aducanumab and lecanemab

The most recent FDA-approved interventional agents are aducanumab and lecanemab, which are indicated for treating Alzheimer disease.^18,19 Both are human monoclonal antibodies that bind selectively and with high affinity to amyloid beta plaque aggregates and promote their removal by Fc receptor–mediated phagocytosis.²⁰

FDA approval of aducanumab and lecanemab was controversial. Initially, aducanumab’s safety monitoring board performed a futility analysis that suggested aducanumab was unlikely to separate from placebo, and the research was stopped.²¹ The manufacturer petitioned the FDA to consider the medication for accelerated approval on the basis of biomarker data showing that amyloid beta plaque aggregates become smaller. Current FDA approval is temporary to allow patients access to this potentially beneficial agent, but the manufacturer must supply clinical evidence that the reduction of amyloid beta plaques is associated with desirable changes in the course of Alzheimer disease, or risk losing the approval.

Lecanemab is also a human monoclonal antibody intended to remove amyloid beta plaques that was FDA-approved under the accelerated approval pathway.²² Unlike aducanumab, lecanemab demonstrated a statistically significant (although clinically imperceptible) reduction in the rate of cognitive decline; it did not show cognitive improvement.²³ Lecanemab also significantly reduced amyloid beta plaques.²³

Continue to: Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally...

Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally not covered by insurance and typically cost >$26,000 annually. Both are administered by IV infusion once a month. More monoclonal antibody medications for treating early Alzheimer disease are in the late stages of development, most notably donanebab.²⁴ Observations during clinical trials found that in the later stages of Alzheimer disease, forceful removal of plaques by the autoimmune process damages neurons, while in less dense deposits of early dementia such removal is not harmful to the cells and prevents amyloid buildup.

Brexanolone

Brexanolone is an aqueous formulation of allopregnanolone, a major metabolite of progesterone and a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors.²⁵ Its levels are maximal at the end of the third trimester of pregnancy and fall rapidly following delivery. Research showed a 3-day infusion was rapidly and significantly effective for treating postpartum depression²⁶ and brexanolone received FDA approval for this indication in March 2019.²⁷ However, various administrative, economic, insurance, and other hurdles make it difficult for patients to access this treatment. Despite its rapid onset of action (usually 48 hours), brexanolone takes an average of 15 days to go through the prior authorization process.²⁸ In addition to the need for prior authorization, the main impediment to the use of brexanolone is the 3-day infusion schedule, which greatly magnifies the cost but is partially circumvented by the availability of dedicated outpatient centers.

Magnesium

Magnesium is on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines.²⁹ There has been extensive research on the use of magnesium sulfate for psychiatric indications, especially for depression.³⁰ Magnesium functions similarly to calcium channel blockers by competitively blocking intracellular calcium channels, decreasing calcium availability, and inhibiting smooth muscle contractility.³¹ It also competes with calcium at the motor end plate, reducing excitation by inhibiting the release of acetylcholine.³² This property is used for high-dose IV magnesium treatment of impending preterm labor in obstetrics. Magnesium sulfate is the drug of choice in treating eclamptic seizures and preventing seizures in severe preeclampsia or gestational hypertension with severe features.³³ It is also used to treat torsade de pointes, severe asthma exacerbations, constipation, and barium poisoning.³⁴ Beneficial use in asthma treatment³⁵ and the treatment of migraine³⁶ have also been reported.

IV magnesium in myocardial infarction may be harmful,³⁷ though outside of acute cardiac events, magnesium is found to be safe.³⁸

Oral magnesium sulfate is a common over-the-counter anxiety remedy. As a general cell stabilizer (mediated by the reduction of intracellular calcium), magnesium is potentially beneficial outside of its muscle-relaxing properties, although muscle relaxing can benefit anxious patients. It is used to treat anxiety,³⁹ alcohol withdrawal,⁴⁰ and fear.⁴¹ Low magnesium blood levels are found in patients with depression, schizophrenia,⁴² and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.⁴³ However, it is important to note that the therapeutic effect of magnesium when treating anxiety and headache is independent of preinfusion magnesium blood levels.⁴³

Continue to: The efficacy of oral magnesium...

The efficacy of oral magnesium is not robust. However, IV administration has a pronounced beneficial effect as an abortive and preventative treatment in many patients with anxiety.⁴⁴

IV administration of magnesium can produce adverse effects, including flushing, sweating, hypotension, depressed reflexes, flaccid paralysis, hypothermia, circulatory collapse, and cardiac and CNS depression. These complications are very rare and dose-dependent.⁴⁵ Magnesium is excreted by the kidneys, and dosing must be decreased in patients with kidney failure. The most common adverse effect is local burning along the vein upon infusion; small doses of IV lidocaine can remedy this. Hot flashes are also common.⁴⁵

Various dosing strategies are available. In patients with anxiety, application dosing is based on the recommended preeclampsia IV dose of 4 g diluted in 250 mL of 5% dextrose. Much higher doses may be used in obstetrics. Unlike in obstetrics, for psychiatric indications, magnesium is administered over 60 to 90 minutes. Heart monitoring is recommended.

Scopolamine

Scopolamine is primarily used to relieve nausea, vomiting, and dizziness associated with motion sickness and recovery from anesthesia. It is also used in ophthalmology and in patients with excessive sweating. In off-label and experimental applications, scopolamine has been used in patients with TRD.⁴⁶

Scopolamine is an anticholinergic medication. It is a nonselective antagonist at muscarinic receptors.⁴⁷ Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) possess strong anticholinergic function. Newer generations of antidepressants were designed specifically not to have this function because it was believed to be an unwanted and potentially dangerous adverse effect. However, data suggest that anticholinergic action is important in decreasing depressive symptoms. Several hypotheses of anticholinergic effects on depression have been published since the 1970s. They include the cholinergic-adrenergic hypothesis,⁴⁸ acetylcholine predominance relative to adrenergic action hypothesis,⁴⁹ and insecticide poisoning observations.⁵⁰ Centrally acting physostigmine (but not peripherally acting neostigmine) was reported to control mania.^48,51 A genetic connection between the M2acetylcholine receptor in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder is also suggestive.⁵²

Continue to: Multiple animal studies show...

Multiple animal studies show direct improvement in mobility and a decrease in despair upon introducing anticholinergic substances.^53-55 The cholinergic theory of depression has been studied in several controlled clinical human studies.^56,57 Use of a short-acting anticholinergic glycopyrrolate during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may contribute to the procedure’s efficacy.

Human research shows scopolamine has a higher efficacy as an antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication in women than in men,⁵⁸ possibly because estrogen increases the activity of choline acetyltransferase and release of acetylcholine.^59,60 M2receptors mediate estrogen influence on the NMDAR, which may explain the anticholinergic effects of depression treatments in women.⁶¹

Another proposed mechanism of action of scopolamine is a potent inhibition of the NMDAR.⁶² Rapid treatments of depression may be based on this mechanism. Examples of such treatments include IV ketamine and sleep deprivation.⁶³ IV scopolamine shows potency in treating MDD and bipolar depression. This treatment should be reserved for patients who do not respond to or are not candidates for other usual treatment modalities of MDD and for the most severe cases. Scopolamine is 30 times more potent than amitriptyline in anticholinergic effect and reportedly produces sustained improvement in MDD.⁶⁴

Scopolamine has no black-box warnings. It has not been studied in pregnant women and is not recommended for use during pregnancy. Due to possible negative cardiovascular effects, a normal electrocardiogram is required before the start of treatment. Exercise caution in patients with glaucoma, benign prostatic enlargement, gastroparesis, unstable cardiovascular status, or severe renal impairment.

Treatment with scopolamine is not indicated for patients with myasthenia gravis, psychosis, or seizures. Patients must be off potassium for 3 days before beginning scopolamine treatment. Patients should consult with their cardiologist before having a scopolamine infusion. Adverse reactions may include psychosis, tachycardia, seizures, paralytic ileus, and glaucoma exacerbation. The most common adverse effects of scopolamine infusion treatment include drowsiness, dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness, and dizziness. Due to possible drowsiness, operating motor vehicles or heavy machinery must be avoided on the day of treatment.⁶⁵ Overall, the adverse effects of scopolamine are preventable and manageable, and its antidepressant efficacy is noteworthy.⁶⁶

Continue to: Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions...

Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions of 4 mcg/kg separated by 3 to 5 days.⁵⁶ It is possible to have a longer treatment course if the patient experiences only partial improvement. Repeated courses or maintenance treatment (similar to ECT maintenance) are utilized in some patients if indicated. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Clomipramine

Clomipramine, a TCA, acts as a preferential inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine uptake and has proven effective in managing depression, TRD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).⁶⁷ Although this medication has reported treatment benefits for patients with phobia, panic disorder,¹⁵ chronic pain,⁶⁸ Tourette syndrome,⁶⁹ premature ejaculation, anorexia nervosa,⁷⁰ cataplexy,⁴⁹ and enuresis,⁷¹ it is FDA-approved only for the treatment of OCD.⁷² Clomipramine may also be beneficial for pain and headache, possibly because of its anti-inflammatory action.⁷³ The anticholinergic effects of clomipramine may add to its efficacy in depression.

The pathophysiology of MDD is connected to hyperactivity of the HPA axis and elevated cortisol levels. Higher clomipramine plasma levels show a linear correlation with lower cortisol secretion and levels, possibly aiding in the treatment of MDD and anxiety.⁷⁴ The higher the blood level, the more pronounced clomipramine’s therapeutic effect across multiple domains.⁷⁵

IV infusion of clomipramine produces the highest concentration in the shortest time, but overall, research does not necessarily support increased efficacy of IV over oral administration. There is evidence suggesting that subgroups of patients with severe, treatment-refractory OCD may benefit from IV agents and research suggests a faster onset of action.⁷⁶ Faster onset of symptom relief is the basis for IV clomipramine use. In patients with OCD, it can take several months for oral medications to produce therapeutic benefits; not all patients can tolerate this. In such scenarios, IV administration may be considered, though it is not appropriate for routine use until more research is available. Patients with treatment-resistant OCD who have exhausted other means of symptom relief may also be candidates for IV treatment.

The adverse effects of IV clomipramine are no different from oral use, though they may be more pronounced. A pretreatment cardiac exam is desirable because clomipramine, like other TCAs, may be cardiotoxic. The anticholinergic adverse effects of TCAs are well known to clinicians⁷⁷ and partially explained in the scopolamine section of this article. It is not advisable to combine clomipramine with other TCAs or serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clomipramine also should not be combined with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, though such a combination was reported in medical literature.⁷⁸ Combination with antiarrhythmics such as lidocaine or opioids such as fentanyl or and tramadol is highly discouraged (fentanyl and tramadol also have serotonergic effects).⁷⁹

Continue to: Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available...

Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available and must be sterilely compounded. The usual course of treatment is a series of 3 infusions: 150 mg on Day 1, 200 mg on Day 2 or Day 3, and 250 mg on Day 3, Day 4, or Day 5, depending on tolerability. A protocol with a 50 mg/d starting dose and titration up to a maximum dose of 225 mg/d over 5 to 7 days has been suggested for inpatient settings.⁶⁷ Titration to 250 mg is more common.⁸⁰

A longer series may be performed, but this increases the likelihood of adverse effects. Booster and maintenance treatments are also completed when required. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Vortioxetine and citalopram

IV treatment of depression with vortioxetine and citalopram has been explored but has not yet taken hold in clinical psychiatry.^81,82

Injections and blocks

Three interventional approaches to treatment that possess psychotherapeutic potential include stellate ganglion blocks (SGBs), glabellar BT injections, and trigger point injections (TPIs). None of these are FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment.

Stellate ganglion blocks

The sympathetic nervous system is involved in autonomic hyperarousal and is at the core of posttraumatic symptomatology.⁸³ Insomnia, anxiety, irritability, hypervigilance, and other excitatory CNS events are connected to the sympathetic nervous system and amygdala activation is commonly observed in those exposed to extreme stress or traumatic events.⁸⁴

Continue to: SGBs were first performed 100 years ago...

SGBs were first performed 100 years ago and reported to have beneficial psychiatric effects at the end of the 1940s. In 1998 in Finland, improvement of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was observed accidentally via thoracic level spine blocks.⁸⁵ In 2006, cervical level sympathetic blocks were shown to be effective for PTSD symptom control.⁸⁶ By the end of 2010, Veterans Administration hospitals adopted SGBs to treat veterans with PTSD.^87,88 The first multisite, randomized clinical trial of SGB for PTSD confirmed multiple previous reports of treatment efficacy. Specifically, 2 SGB treatments 2 weeks apart effectively reduced total symptom severity scores over 8 weeks.⁸⁷

Since the stellate ganglion is connected to the amygdala, SGB has also been assessed for treating anxiety and depression.^89,90 Outside of PTSD, SGBs are used to treat complex regional pain syndrome,⁹¹ phantom limb pain, trigeminal neuralgia,⁹² intractable angina,⁹³ and postherpetic neuralgia in the head, neck, upper chest, or arms.⁹⁴ The procedure consists of an injection of a local anesthetic through a 25-gauge needle into the stellate sympathetic ganglion at the C6 or C7 vertebral levels. An injection into C6 is considered safer because of specific cervical spine anatomy. Ideally, fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound is used to guide needle insertion.⁹⁵

A severe drop in blood pressure may be associated with SGBs and is mitigated by IV hydration. Other adverse effects include red eyes, drooping of the eyelids, nasal congestion, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing, a sensation of a “lump” in the throat, and a sensation of warmth or tingling in the arm or hand. Bilateral SGB is contraindicated due to the danger of respiratory arrest.⁹⁶

Glabellar BT injections

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT) injection was first approved for therapeutic use in 1989 for eye muscle disorders such as strabismus⁹⁷ and blepharospasm.⁹⁸ It was later approved for several other indications, including cosmetic use, hyperhidrosis, migraine prevention, neurogenic bladder disorder, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and spasticity.^99-104 BT is used off-label for achalasia and sialorrhea.^105,106 Its mechanism of action is primarily attributed to muscle paralysis by blocking presynaptic acetylcholine release into neuromuscular junctions.¹⁰⁷

Facial BT injections are usually administered for cosmetic purposes, but smoothing forehead wrinkles and frown lines (the glabellar region of the face) both have antidepressant effects.¹⁰⁸ BT injections into the glabellar region also demonstrate antidepressant effects, particularly in patients with comorbid migraines and MDD.¹⁰⁹ Early case observations supported the independent benefit of the toxin on MDD when the toxin was injected into the glabellar region.^110,111 The most frequent protocol involves injections in the procerus and corrugator muscles.

Continue to: The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis...

The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis has dominated thinking about the mood-improving effects of BT. The theory is that blocking muscular expression of sadness (especially in the face) interrupts the experience of sadness; therefore, depression subsides.^112,113 However, BT injections in the muscles involved in the smile and an expression of positive emotions (lateral part of the musculus orbicularis oculi) have been associated with increased MDD scores.¹¹⁴ Thus, the mechanism clearly involves more than the cosmetic effect, since facial muscle injections in rats also have antidepressant effects.¹¹⁵

The use of progressive muscle relaxation is well-established in psychiatric treatment. The investigated conditions of increased muscle tone, especially torticollis and blepharospasm, are associated with MDD, and it may be speculated that proprioceptive feedback from the affected muscles may be causally involved in this association.^116-118 Activity of the corrugator muscle has been positively associated with increased amygdala activity.¹¹⁹ This suggests a potential similar mechanism to that hypothesized for SGB.

Alternatively, BT is commonly used to treat chronic conditions that may contribute to depression; its success in relieving the underlying problem may indirectly relieve MDD. Thus, in a postmarketing safety evaluation of BT, MDD was demonstrated 40% to 88% less often by patients treated with BT for 6 of the 8 conditions and injection sites, such as in spasms and spasticity of arms and legs, torticollis and neck pain, and axilla and palm injections for hyperhidrosis. In a parotid and submandibular glands BT injection subcohort, no patients experienced depressive symptoms.¹²⁰

Medicinal BT is generally considered safe. The most common adverse effects are hypersensitivity, injection site reactions, and other adverse effects specific to the injection site.¹²¹ Additionally, the cosmetic effects are transient, given the nature of the medication.

Trigger point injections

TPIs in the neck and shoulders are frequently used to treat tension headaches and various referred pain locations in the face and arms. Tension and depression frequently overlap in clinical practice.¹²² Relieving muscle tension (with resulting trigger points) improves muscle function and mood.

Continue to: The higher the number of active...

The higher the number of active trigger points (TPs), the greater the physical burden of headache and the higher the anxiety level. Gender differences in TP prevalence and TPI efficacy have been described in the literature. For example, the number of active TPs seems directly associated with anxiety levels in women but not in men.¹²³ Although TPs appear to be more closely associated with anxiety than depression,¹²⁴ depression associated with muscle tension does improve with TPIs. European studies have demonstrated a decrease in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale following TPI treatment.¹²⁵ The effect may be indirect, as when a patient’s pain is relieved, sleep and other psychiatric symptoms improve.¹²⁶

A randomized controlled trial by Castro Sánchez et al¹²⁷ demonstrated that dry needling therapy in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) showed improvements in pain pressure thresholds, body pain, vitality, and social function, as well as total FMS symptoms, quality of sleep, anxiety, hospital anxiety and depression, general pain intensity, and fatigue.

Myofascial pain syndrome, catastrophizing, and muscle tension are common in patients with depression, anxiety, and somatization. Local TPI therapy aimed at inactivating pain generators is supported by moderate quality evidence. All manner of therapies have been described, including injection of saline, corticosteroids, local anesthetic agents, and dry needling. BT injections in chronic TPs are also practiced, though no specific injection therapy has been reliably shown to be more advantageous than another. The benefits of TPIs may be derived from the needle itself rather than from any specific substance injected. Stimulation of a local twitch response with direct needling of the TP appears of importance. There is no established consensus regarding the number of injection points, frequency of administration, and volume or type of injectate.¹²⁸

Adverse effects of TPIs relate to the nature of the invasive therapy, with the risk of tissue damage and bleeding. Pneumothorax risk is present with needle insertion at the neck and thorax.¹²⁹ Patients with diabetes may experience variations in blood sugar control if steroids are used.

Bottom Line

Interventional treatment modalities that may have a role in psychiatric treatment include IV administration of ketamine, aducanumab, lecanemab, brexanolone, magnesium, scopolamine, and clomipramine. Other interventional approaches include stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin injections, and trigger point injections.

Related Resources

• Dokucu ME, Janicak PG. Nontraditional therapies for treatment-resistant depression. Current Psychiatry. 2021; 20(9):38-43,49. doi:10.12788/cp.0166
• Kim J, Khoury R, Grossberg GT. Botulinum toxin: emerging psychiatric indications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):8-18.

Drug Brand Names

Aducanumab • Aduhelm
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Diazepam • Valium
Droperidol • Inapsine
Esketamine • Spravato
Fentanyl • Actiq
Fluphenazine decanoate • Modecate
Fluphenazine hydrochloride • Prolixin
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Haloperidol lactate • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lecanemab • Leqembi
Lidocaine • Xylocaine
Lorazepam • Ativan
Loxapine inhaled • Adasuve
Naltrexone • Vivitrol
Magnesium sulfate • Sulfamag
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
OnabotulinumtoxinA injection • Botox
Paliperidone • Invega Hafyera, Invega Sustenna, Invega Trinza
Rapamycin • Rapamune, Sirolimus
Risperidone • Perseris
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta, Rykindo
Scopolamine • Hyoscine
Tramadol • Conzip
Vortioxetine • Trintellix
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Advances in the understanding of neurobiological and neuro­psychiatric pathophysiology have opened new avenues of treatment for psychiatric patients. Historically, with a few exceptions, most psychiatric medications have been administered orally. However, many of the newer treatments require some form of specialized administration because they cannot be taken orally due to their chemical property (such as aducanumab); because there is the need to produce stable blood levels of the medication (such as brexanolone); because oral administration greatly diminished efficacy (such as oral vs IV magnesium or scopolamine), or because the treatment is focused on specific brain structures. This need for specialized administration has created a subspecialty called interventional psychiatry.

Part 1 of this 2-part article provides an overview of 1 type of interventional psychiatry: parenterally administered medications, including those administered via IV. We also describe 3 other interventional approaches to treatment: stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin (BT) injections, and trigger point injections. In Part 2 we will review interventional approaches that involve neuromodulation.

Parenteral medications in psychiatry

In general, IV and IM medications can be more potent that oral medications due to their overall faster onset of action and higher blood concentrations. These more invasive forms of administration can have significant limitations, such as a risk of infection at the injection site, the need to be administered in a medical setting, additional time, and patient discomfort.

Table 1 lists short-acting injectable medications used in psychiatry, and Table 2 lists long-acting injectable medications. Parenteral administration of antipsychotics is performed to alleviate acute agitation or for chronic symptom control. These medications generally are not considered interventional treatments, but could be classified as such due to their invasive nature.¹ Furthermore, inhalable loxapine—which is indicated for managing acute agitation—requires a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program consisting of 2 hours observation and monitoring of respiratory status.^2,3 Other indications for parenteral treatments include IM naltrexone extended release⁴ and subcutaneous injections of buprenorphine extended release⁵ and risperidone.⁶

IV administration

Most IV treatments described in this article are not FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment. Despite this, many interventional psychiatric treatments are part of clinical practice. IV infusion of ketamine is the most widely known and most researched of these. Table 3 lists other IV treatments that could be used as psychiatric treatment.

Ketamine

Since the early 1960s, ketamine has been used as a surgical anesthetic for animals. In the United States, it was approved for human surgical anesthesia in 1970. It was widely used during the Vietnam War due to its lack of inhibition of respiratory drive; medical staff first noticed an improvement in depressive symptoms and the resolution of suicidal ideation in patients who received ketamine. This led to further research on ketamine, particularly to determine its application in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and other conditions.⁷ IV ketamine administration is most widely researched, but IM injections, intranasal sprays, and lozenges are also available. The dissociative properties of ketamine have led to its recreational use.⁸

Hypotheses for the mechanism of action of ketamine as an antidepressant include direct synaptic or extrasynaptic (GluN2B-selective), N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) inhibition, selectively greater inhibition of NMDARs localized on GABAergic (gamma-aminobutyric acid) interneurons, and the role of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic acid receptor activation. There are links between ketamine’s antidepressant actions and downstream mechanisms regulating synaptic plasticity, including brain-derived neurotrophic factor, eukaryotic elongation factor 2, mammalian target of rapamycin, and glycogen synthase kinase-3. Multiple other ketamine-associated mechanisms also have been described.^9,10 Action on the mu-opioid receptor is also known, possibly contributing to both antidepressant and anesthetic properties of ketamine.¹¹ Rapid onset of ketamine antidepressant action is especially valuable.¹²

Continue to: Ketamine is a schedule...

Ketamine is a schedule III medication with addictive properties. Delirium, panic attacks, hallucinations, nightmares, dysphoria, and paranoia may occur during and after use.¹³ Premedication with benzodiazepines, most notably lorazepam, is occasionally used to minimize ketamine’s adverse effects, but this generally is not recommended because doing so reduces ketamine’s antidepressant effects.¹⁴ Driving and operating heavy machinery is contraindicated after IV infusion. The usual protocol involves an IV infusion of ketamine 0.4 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg dosing over 1 hour. Doses between 0.4 mg/kg and 0.6 mg/kg are most common. Ketamine has a therapeutic window; doses >0.5 mg/kg are progressively less effective.¹⁵ Unlike the recommendation after esketamine administration, after receiving ketamine, patients remain in the care of their treatment team for <2 hours.

Esketamine, the S enantiomer of ketamine, was FDA-approved for TRD as an intranasal formulation. Esketamine is more commonly used than IV ketamine because it is FDA-approved and typically covered by insurance, but it may not be as effective.¹⁶ An economic analysis by Brendle et al¹⁷ suggested insurance companies would lower costs if they covered ketamine infusions vs intranasal esketamine.

Aducanumab and lecanemab

The most recent FDA-approved interventional agents are aducanumab and lecanemab, which are indicated for treating Alzheimer disease.^18,19 Both are human monoclonal antibodies that bind selectively and with high affinity to amyloid beta plaque aggregates and promote their removal by Fc receptor–mediated phagocytosis.²⁰

FDA approval of aducanumab and lecanemab was controversial. Initially, aducanumab’s safety monitoring board performed a futility analysis that suggested aducanumab was unlikely to separate from placebo, and the research was stopped.²¹ The manufacturer petitioned the FDA to consider the medication for accelerated approval on the basis of biomarker data showing that amyloid beta plaque aggregates become smaller. Current FDA approval is temporary to allow patients access to this potentially beneficial agent, but the manufacturer must supply clinical evidence that the reduction of amyloid beta plaques is associated with desirable changes in the course of Alzheimer disease, or risk losing the approval.

Lecanemab is also a human monoclonal antibody intended to remove amyloid beta plaques that was FDA-approved under the accelerated approval pathway.²² Unlike aducanumab, lecanemab demonstrated a statistically significant (although clinically imperceptible) reduction in the rate of cognitive decline; it did not show cognitive improvement.²³ Lecanemab also significantly reduced amyloid beta plaques.²³

Continue to: Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally...

Aducanumab and lecanemab are generally not covered by insurance and typically cost >$26,000 annually. Both are administered by IV infusion once a month. More monoclonal antibody medications for treating early Alzheimer disease are in the late stages of development, most notably donanebab.²⁴ Observations during clinical trials found that in the later stages of Alzheimer disease, forceful removal of plaques by the autoimmune process damages neurons, while in less dense deposits of early dementia such removal is not harmful to the cells and prevents amyloid buildup.

Brexanolone

Brexanolone is an aqueous formulation of allopregnanolone, a major metabolite of progesterone and a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors.²⁵ Its levels are maximal at the end of the third trimester of pregnancy and fall rapidly following delivery. Research showed a 3-day infusion was rapidly and significantly effective for treating postpartum depression²⁶ and brexanolone received FDA approval for this indication in March 2019.²⁷ However, various administrative, economic, insurance, and other hurdles make it difficult for patients to access this treatment. Despite its rapid onset of action (usually 48 hours), brexanolone takes an average of 15 days to go through the prior authorization process.²⁸ In addition to the need for prior authorization, the main impediment to the use of brexanolone is the 3-day infusion schedule, which greatly magnifies the cost but is partially circumvented by the availability of dedicated outpatient centers.

Magnesium

Magnesium is on the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines.²⁹ There has been extensive research on the use of magnesium sulfate for psychiatric indications, especially for depression.³⁰ Magnesium functions similarly to calcium channel blockers by competitively blocking intracellular calcium channels, decreasing calcium availability, and inhibiting smooth muscle contractility.³¹ It also competes with calcium at the motor end plate, reducing excitation by inhibiting the release of acetylcholine.³² This property is used for high-dose IV magnesium treatment of impending preterm labor in obstetrics. Magnesium sulfate is the drug of choice in treating eclamptic seizures and preventing seizures in severe preeclampsia or gestational hypertension with severe features.³³ It is also used to treat torsade de pointes, severe asthma exacerbations, constipation, and barium poisoning.³⁴ Beneficial use in asthma treatment³⁵ and the treatment of migraine³⁶ have also been reported.

IV magnesium in myocardial infarction may be harmful,³⁷ though outside of acute cardiac events, magnesium is found to be safe.³⁸

Oral magnesium sulfate is a common over-the-counter anxiety remedy. As a general cell stabilizer (mediated by the reduction of intracellular calcium), magnesium is potentially beneficial outside of its muscle-relaxing properties, although muscle relaxing can benefit anxious patients. It is used to treat anxiety,³⁹ alcohol withdrawal,⁴⁰ and fear.⁴¹ Low magnesium blood levels are found in patients with depression, schizophrenia,⁴² and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.⁴³ However, it is important to note that the therapeutic effect of magnesium when treating anxiety and headache is independent of preinfusion magnesium blood levels.⁴³

Continue to: The efficacy of oral magnesium...

The efficacy of oral magnesium is not robust. However, IV administration has a pronounced beneficial effect as an abortive and preventative treatment in many patients with anxiety.⁴⁴

IV administration of magnesium can produce adverse effects, including flushing, sweating, hypotension, depressed reflexes, flaccid paralysis, hypothermia, circulatory collapse, and cardiac and CNS depression. These complications are very rare and dose-dependent.⁴⁵ Magnesium is excreted by the kidneys, and dosing must be decreased in patients with kidney failure. The most common adverse effect is local burning along the vein upon infusion; small doses of IV lidocaine can remedy this. Hot flashes are also common.⁴⁵

Various dosing strategies are available. In patients with anxiety, application dosing is based on the recommended preeclampsia IV dose of 4 g diluted in 250 mL of 5% dextrose. Much higher doses may be used in obstetrics. Unlike in obstetrics, for psychiatric indications, magnesium is administered over 60 to 90 minutes. Heart monitoring is recommended.

Scopolamine

Scopolamine is primarily used to relieve nausea, vomiting, and dizziness associated with motion sickness and recovery from anesthesia. It is also used in ophthalmology and in patients with excessive sweating. In off-label and experimental applications, scopolamine has been used in patients with TRD.⁴⁶

Scopolamine is an anticholinergic medication. It is a nonselective antagonist at muscarinic receptors.⁴⁷ Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) possess strong anticholinergic function. Newer generations of antidepressants were designed specifically not to have this function because it was believed to be an unwanted and potentially dangerous adverse effect. However, data suggest that anticholinergic action is important in decreasing depressive symptoms. Several hypotheses of anticholinergic effects on depression have been published since the 1970s. They include the cholinergic-adrenergic hypothesis,⁴⁸ acetylcholine predominance relative to adrenergic action hypothesis,⁴⁹ and insecticide poisoning observations.⁵⁰ Centrally acting physostigmine (but not peripherally acting neostigmine) was reported to control mania.^48,51 A genetic connection between the M2acetylcholine receptor in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder is also suggestive.⁵²

Continue to: Multiple animal studies show...

Multiple animal studies show direct improvement in mobility and a decrease in despair upon introducing anticholinergic substances.^53-55 The cholinergic theory of depression has been studied in several controlled clinical human studies.^56,57 Use of a short-acting anticholinergic glycopyrrolate during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may contribute to the procedure’s efficacy.

Human research shows scopolamine has a higher efficacy as an antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication in women than in men,⁵⁸ possibly because estrogen increases the activity of choline acetyltransferase and release of acetylcholine.^59,60 M2receptors mediate estrogen influence on the NMDAR, which may explain the anticholinergic effects of depression treatments in women.⁶¹

Another proposed mechanism of action of scopolamine is a potent inhibition of the NMDAR.⁶² Rapid treatments of depression may be based on this mechanism. Examples of such treatments include IV ketamine and sleep deprivation.⁶³ IV scopolamine shows potency in treating MDD and bipolar depression. This treatment should be reserved for patients who do not respond to or are not candidates for other usual treatment modalities of MDD and for the most severe cases. Scopolamine is 30 times more potent than amitriptyline in anticholinergic effect and reportedly produces sustained improvement in MDD.⁶⁴

Scopolamine has no black-box warnings. It has not been studied in pregnant women and is not recommended for use during pregnancy. Due to possible negative cardiovascular effects, a normal electrocardiogram is required before the start of treatment. Exercise caution in patients with glaucoma, benign prostatic enlargement, gastroparesis, unstable cardiovascular status, or severe renal impairment.

Treatment with scopolamine is not indicated for patients with myasthenia gravis, psychosis, or seizures. Patients must be off potassium for 3 days before beginning scopolamine treatment. Patients should consult with their cardiologist before having a scopolamine infusion. Adverse reactions may include psychosis, tachycardia, seizures, paralytic ileus, and glaucoma exacerbation. The most common adverse effects of scopolamine infusion treatment include drowsiness, dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness, and dizziness. Due to possible drowsiness, operating motor vehicles or heavy machinery must be avoided on the day of treatment.⁶⁵ Overall, the adverse effects of scopolamine are preventable and manageable, and its antidepressant efficacy is noteworthy.⁶⁶

Continue to: Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions...

Treatment typically consists of 3 consecutive infusions of 4 mcg/kg separated by 3 to 5 days.⁵⁶ It is possible to have a longer treatment course if the patient experiences only partial improvement. Repeated courses or maintenance treatment (similar to ECT maintenance) are utilized in some patients if indicated. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Clomipramine

Clomipramine, a TCA, acts as a preferential inhibitor of 5-hydroxytryptamine uptake and has proven effective in managing depression, TRD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).⁶⁷ Although this medication has reported treatment benefits for patients with phobia, panic disorder,¹⁵ chronic pain,⁶⁸ Tourette syndrome,⁶⁹ premature ejaculation, anorexia nervosa,⁷⁰ cataplexy,⁴⁹ and enuresis,⁷¹ it is FDA-approved only for the treatment of OCD.⁷² Clomipramine may also be beneficial for pain and headache, possibly because of its anti-inflammatory action.⁷³ The anticholinergic effects of clomipramine may add to its efficacy in depression.

The pathophysiology of MDD is connected to hyperactivity of the HPA axis and elevated cortisol levels. Higher clomipramine plasma levels show a linear correlation with lower cortisol secretion and levels, possibly aiding in the treatment of MDD and anxiety.⁷⁴ The higher the blood level, the more pronounced clomipramine’s therapeutic effect across multiple domains.⁷⁵

IV infusion of clomipramine produces the highest concentration in the shortest time, but overall, research does not necessarily support increased efficacy of IV over oral administration. There is evidence suggesting that subgroups of patients with severe, treatment-refractory OCD may benefit from IV agents and research suggests a faster onset of action.⁷⁶ Faster onset of symptom relief is the basis for IV clomipramine use. In patients with OCD, it can take several months for oral medications to produce therapeutic benefits; not all patients can tolerate this. In such scenarios, IV administration may be considered, though it is not appropriate for routine use until more research is available. Patients with treatment-resistant OCD who have exhausted other means of symptom relief may also be candidates for IV treatment.

The adverse effects of IV clomipramine are no different from oral use, though they may be more pronounced. A pretreatment cardiac exam is desirable because clomipramine, like other TCAs, may be cardiotoxic. The anticholinergic adverse effects of TCAs are well known to clinicians⁷⁷ and partially explained in the scopolamine section of this article. It is not advisable to combine clomipramine with other TCAs or serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Clomipramine also should not be combined with monoamine oxidase inhibitors, though such a combination was reported in medical literature.⁷⁸ Combination with antiarrhythmics such as lidocaine or opioids such as fentanyl or and tramadol is highly discouraged (fentanyl and tramadol also have serotonergic effects).⁷⁹

Continue to: Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available...

Clomipramine for IV use is not commercially available and must be sterilely compounded. The usual course of treatment is a series of 3 infusions: 150 mg on Day 1, 200 mg on Day 2 or Day 3, and 250 mg on Day 3, Day 4, or Day 5, depending on tolerability. A protocol with a 50 mg/d starting dose and titration up to a maximum dose of 225 mg/d over 5 to 7 days has been suggested for inpatient settings.⁶⁷ Titration to 250 mg is more common.⁸⁰

A longer series may be performed, but this increases the likelihood of adverse effects. Booster and maintenance treatments are also completed when required. Cardiac monitoring is mandatory.

Vortioxetine and citalopram

IV treatment of depression with vortioxetine and citalopram has been explored but has not yet taken hold in clinical psychiatry.^81,82

Injections and blocks

Three interventional approaches to treatment that possess psychotherapeutic potential include stellate ganglion blocks (SGBs), glabellar BT injections, and trigger point injections (TPIs). None of these are FDA-approved for psychiatric treatment.

Stellate ganglion blocks

The sympathetic nervous system is involved in autonomic hyperarousal and is at the core of posttraumatic symptomatology.⁸³ Insomnia, anxiety, irritability, hypervigilance, and other excitatory CNS events are connected to the sympathetic nervous system and amygdala activation is commonly observed in those exposed to extreme stress or traumatic events.⁸⁴

Continue to: SGBs were first performed 100 years ago...

SGBs were first performed 100 years ago and reported to have beneficial psychiatric effects at the end of the 1940s. In 1998 in Finland, improvement of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was observed accidentally via thoracic level spine blocks.⁸⁵ In 2006, cervical level sympathetic blocks were shown to be effective for PTSD symptom control.⁸⁶ By the end of 2010, Veterans Administration hospitals adopted SGBs to treat veterans with PTSD.^87,88 The first multisite, randomized clinical trial of SGB for PTSD confirmed multiple previous reports of treatment efficacy. Specifically, 2 SGB treatments 2 weeks apart effectively reduced total symptom severity scores over 8 weeks.⁸⁷

Since the stellate ganglion is connected to the amygdala, SGB has also been assessed for treating anxiety and depression.^89,90 Outside of PTSD, SGBs are used to treat complex regional pain syndrome,⁹¹ phantom limb pain, trigeminal neuralgia,⁹² intractable angina,⁹³ and postherpetic neuralgia in the head, neck, upper chest, or arms.⁹⁴ The procedure consists of an injection of a local anesthetic through a 25-gauge needle into the stellate sympathetic ganglion at the C6 or C7 vertebral levels. An injection into C6 is considered safer because of specific cervical spine anatomy. Ideally, fluoroscopic guidance or ultrasound is used to guide needle insertion.⁹⁵

A severe drop in blood pressure may be associated with SGBs and is mitigated by IV hydration. Other adverse effects include red eyes, drooping of the eyelids, nasal congestion, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing, a sensation of a “lump” in the throat, and a sensation of warmth or tingling in the arm or hand. Bilateral SGB is contraindicated due to the danger of respiratory arrest.⁹⁶

Glabellar BT injections

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BT) injection was first approved for therapeutic use in 1989 for eye muscle disorders such as strabismus⁹⁷ and blepharospasm.⁹⁸ It was later approved for several other indications, including cosmetic use, hyperhidrosis, migraine prevention, neurogenic bladder disorder, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, and spasticity.^99-104 BT is used off-label for achalasia and sialorrhea.^105,106 Its mechanism of action is primarily attributed to muscle paralysis by blocking presynaptic acetylcholine release into neuromuscular junctions.¹⁰⁷

Facial BT injections are usually administered for cosmetic purposes, but smoothing forehead wrinkles and frown lines (the glabellar region of the face) both have antidepressant effects.¹⁰⁸ BT injections into the glabellar region also demonstrate antidepressant effects, particularly in patients with comorbid migraines and MDD.¹⁰⁹ Early case observations supported the independent benefit of the toxin on MDD when the toxin was injected into the glabellar region.^110,111 The most frequent protocol involves injections in the procerus and corrugator muscles.

Continue to: The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis...

The facial feedback/emotional proprioception hypothesis has dominated thinking about the mood-improving effects of BT. The theory is that blocking muscular expression of sadness (especially in the face) interrupts the experience of sadness; therefore, depression subsides.^112,113 However, BT injections in the muscles involved in the smile and an expression of positive emotions (lateral part of the musculus orbicularis oculi) have been associated with increased MDD scores.¹¹⁴ Thus, the mechanism clearly involves more than the cosmetic effect, since facial muscle injections in rats also have antidepressant effects.¹¹⁵

The use of progressive muscle relaxation is well-established in psychiatric treatment. The investigated conditions of increased muscle tone, especially torticollis and blepharospasm, are associated with MDD, and it may be speculated that proprioceptive feedback from the affected muscles may be causally involved in this association.^116-118 Activity of the corrugator muscle has been positively associated with increased amygdala activity.¹¹⁹ This suggests a potential similar mechanism to that hypothesized for SGB.

Alternatively, BT is commonly used to treat chronic conditions that may contribute to depression; its success in relieving the underlying problem may indirectly relieve MDD. Thus, in a postmarketing safety evaluation of BT, MDD was demonstrated 40% to 88% less often by patients treated with BT for 6 of the 8 conditions and injection sites, such as in spasms and spasticity of arms and legs, torticollis and neck pain, and axilla and palm injections for hyperhidrosis. In a parotid and submandibular glands BT injection subcohort, no patients experienced depressive symptoms.¹²⁰

Medicinal BT is generally considered safe. The most common adverse effects are hypersensitivity, injection site reactions, and other adverse effects specific to the injection site.¹²¹ Additionally, the cosmetic effects are transient, given the nature of the medication.

Trigger point injections

TPIs in the neck and shoulders are frequently used to treat tension headaches and various referred pain locations in the face and arms. Tension and depression frequently overlap in clinical practice.¹²² Relieving muscle tension (with resulting trigger points) improves muscle function and mood.

Continue to: The higher the number of active...

The higher the number of active trigger points (TPs), the greater the physical burden of headache and the higher the anxiety level. Gender differences in TP prevalence and TPI efficacy have been described in the literature. For example, the number of active TPs seems directly associated with anxiety levels in women but not in men.¹²³ Although TPs appear to be more closely associated with anxiety than depression,¹²⁴ depression associated with muscle tension does improve with TPIs. European studies have demonstrated a decrease in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale following TPI treatment.¹²⁵ The effect may be indirect, as when a patient’s pain is relieved, sleep and other psychiatric symptoms improve.¹²⁶

A randomized controlled trial by Castro Sánchez et al¹²⁷ demonstrated that dry needling therapy in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) showed improvements in pain pressure thresholds, body pain, vitality, and social function, as well as total FMS symptoms, quality of sleep, anxiety, hospital anxiety and depression, general pain intensity, and fatigue.

Myofascial pain syndrome, catastrophizing, and muscle tension are common in patients with depression, anxiety, and somatization. Local TPI therapy aimed at inactivating pain generators is supported by moderate quality evidence. All manner of therapies have been described, including injection of saline, corticosteroids, local anesthetic agents, and dry needling. BT injections in chronic TPs are also practiced, though no specific injection therapy has been reliably shown to be more advantageous than another. The benefits of TPIs may be derived from the needle itself rather than from any specific substance injected. Stimulation of a local twitch response with direct needling of the TP appears of importance. There is no established consensus regarding the number of injection points, frequency of administration, and volume or type of injectate.¹²⁸

Adverse effects of TPIs relate to the nature of the invasive therapy, with the risk of tissue damage and bleeding. Pneumothorax risk is present with needle insertion at the neck and thorax.¹²⁹ Patients with diabetes may experience variations in blood sugar control if steroids are used.

Bottom Line

Interventional treatment modalities that may have a role in psychiatric treatment include IV administration of ketamine, aducanumab, lecanemab, brexanolone, magnesium, scopolamine, and clomipramine. Other interventional approaches include stellate ganglion blocks, glabellar botulinum toxin injections, and trigger point injections.

Related Resources

• Dokucu ME, Janicak PG. Nontraditional therapies for treatment-resistant depression. Current Psychiatry. 2021; 20(9):38-43,49. doi:10.12788/cp.0166
• Kim J, Khoury R, Grossberg GT. Botulinum toxin: emerging psychiatric indications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):8-18.

Drug Brand Names

Aducanumab • Aduhelm
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Buprenorphine • Sublocade
Citalopram • Celexa
Clomipramine • Anafranil
Diazepam • Valium
Droperidol • Inapsine
Esketamine • Spravato
Fentanyl • Actiq
Fluphenazine decanoate • Modecate
Fluphenazine hydrochloride • Prolixin
Haloperidol decanoate • Haldol decanoate
Haloperidol lactate • Haldol
Ketamine • Ketalar
Lecanemab • Leqembi
Lidocaine • Xylocaine
Lorazepam • Ativan
Loxapine inhaled • Adasuve
Naltrexone • Vivitrol
Magnesium sulfate • Sulfamag
Midazolam • Versed
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
OnabotulinumtoxinA injection • Botox
Paliperidone • Invega Hafyera, Invega Sustenna, Invega Trinza
Rapamycin • Rapamune, Sirolimus
Risperidone • Perseris
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta, Rykindo
Scopolamine • Hyoscine
Tramadol • Conzip
Vortioxetine • Trintellix
Ziprasidone • Geodon

Ms. D, age 32, recently gave birth to her second child. Her psychiatric history includes major depressive disorder. She had been stable on mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for 3 years. Based on clinical stability and patient preference, Ms. D elected to taper off mirtazapine 1 month prior to delivery. Now at 1 month postdelivery, Ms. D notes the reemergence of her depressive symptoms; during her child’s latest pediatrician visit, she scores 15 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). She breastfeeds her baby and wants more information on the safety of taking an antidepressant while breastfeeding.

Ms. D discusses her previous use of mirtazapine with her treatment team. The team reviews the available resources with Ms. D and together they plan to make a shared decision regarding treatment of her depression at her next appointment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics¹ and World Health Organization² recommend exclusive breastfeeding of infants for their first 6 months of life and support it as a complement to other foods through and beyond age 2. Untreated conditions such as postpartum depression impact maternal well-being and may interfere with parenting and child development. In fact, untreated maternal mental health leads to an increased risk of suicide, reduced maternal economic productivity, and worsened health for both mother and child.³

Because many women experience psychiatric symptoms before they become pregnant as well as during the perinatal period, questions often arise regardingthe use of psychiatric medications—specifically antidepressants—and their safety in patients who are breastfeeding. Key considerations regarding medication management should include the patient’s previous response to medications, the risks of untreated maternal mental illness, and evidence regarding risks and benefits in lactation. This article summarizes where to find evidence-based lactation information, how to interpret that information, and what information is available for select antidepressants.

Locating lactation information

Start by checking the manufacturer’s medication labeling (“prescribing information”) and medication information resources such as Micromedex (www.micromedexsolutions.com) and Lexicomp (www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/lexicomp). The updated labeling includes a risk/benefit assessment of available data on the risk for continued use of a medication during pregnancy compared to the risk if a medication is discontinued and the disorder goes untreated.⁴ The “breastfeeding considerations” section of medication labeling include details regarding the presence of the medication and the amount of it in breastmilk, adverse events in infants exposed to the medication through breastmilk, and additional pertinent data as applicable. Lexicomp includes information regarding breastfeeding considerations, and a subscription may also include access to Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation’s information pages. Micromedex includes its own lactation safety rating scale score.

Several other resources can help guide clinicians toward patient-specific recommendations. From the National Library of Medicine, LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/) allows clinicians to search for specific medications to see what information exists pertaining to medication levels in breastmilk and infant blood as well as potential adverse effects in the nursing infant and/or on lactation and breastmilk.⁵ LactMed provides information regarding alternative medications to consider and references from which the information was gathered.

Another helpful resource is the InfantRisk Center from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, which includes a free call center for parents and clinicians who have questions about medications and breastfeeding (806-352-2519; Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm CST). The InfantRisk Center also offers smartphone apps for clinicians as well as individuals who are pregnant or breastfeeding.⁶ Two commonly referenced textbooks on medications and breastfeeding include Hale’s Medication and Mother’s Milk 2023: A Manual of Lactational Pharmacology⁷ and Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation: A Reference Guide to Fetal and Neonatal Risk.⁸

Continue to: How to interpret the information

How to interpret the information

Medication levels in breastmilk are affected by several properties, such as the medication’s molecular weight, protein binding, pKa, and volume of distribution. A few commonly used terms in lactation literature for medications include the relative infant dose (RID) and milk/plasma (M/P) ratio.

RID provides information about relative medication exposure for the infant. It is calculated by dividing the infant’s dose of a medication via breastmilk (mg/kg/d) by the mother’s dose (mg/kg/d).⁷ Most consider an RID <10% to be safe.⁷

M/P is the ratio of medication concentration in the mother’s milk divided by the medication concentration in the mother’s plasma. A ratio <1 is preferable and generally indicates that a low level of medication has been transferred to human milk.⁷

Another factor that can be evaluated is protein binding. Medications that are highly protein-bound do not tend to pass as easily into breastmilk and can minimize infant exposure.

Several risk categorization systems are available, depending upon the resource used to obtain lactation information. One common system is Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories, with 5 safety levels ranging from L1 (breastfeeding compatible) to L5 (hazardous) (Table 1⁷). Briggs et al⁸ utilize 7 categories to summarize recommendations ranging from breastfeeding-compatible to contraindicated; however, it is important to read the full medication monograph in the context of the rating provided.Table 2^7,8 provides breastfeeding information from Hale’s⁷ and from Briggs et al⁸ for some commonly used antidepressants.

In addition to interpreting available literature, it is also important to consider patient-specific factors, including (but not limited to) the severity of the patient’s psychiatric disorder and their previous response to medication. If a mother achieved remission on a particular antidepressant in the past, it may be preferable to restart that agent rather than trial a new medication.

CASE CONTINUED

Two weeks later and following the use of a variety of resources, Ms. D’s treatment team finds that mirtazapine is rated Probably Compatible (L3 in Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories), with an M/P ratio of 0.76.⁷ The RID of mirtazapine ranges from 1.6% to 6.3%, and limited data from infants exposed to maternal use of mirtazapine during breastfeeding have not shown adverse effects.⁵ The treatment team administers the EDPS to Ms. D again and she scores 18. Given Ms. D’s previous remission with mirtazapine, current severity of depressive symptoms, and the risk/benefit assessment from lactation resources, the decision is made to restart mirtazapine 15 mg/d at bedtime with the option to titrate up if indicated. Ms. D plans to continue breastfeeding and will monitor for signs of any adverse effects in her infant. The Figure provides a summary of navigating this individualized decision with patients.

Related Resources

• MotherToBaby. Medication fact sheets, option to contact for no-charge consultation, free patient education information materials. www.mothertobaby.org
• Reprotox. Summaries on effects of medications on pregnancy, reproduction, and development (subscription required). www.reprotox.org

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Citalopram • Celexa
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nortriptyline • Pamelor
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

Ms. D, age 32, recently gave birth to her second child. Her psychiatric history includes major depressive disorder. She had been stable on mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for 3 years. Based on clinical stability and patient preference, Ms. D elected to taper off mirtazapine 1 month prior to delivery. Now at 1 month postdelivery, Ms. D notes the reemergence of her depressive symptoms; during her child’s latest pediatrician visit, she scores 15 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). She breastfeeds her baby and wants more information on the safety of taking an antidepressant while breastfeeding.

Ms. D discusses her previous use of mirtazapine with her treatment team. The team reviews the available resources with Ms. D and together they plan to make a shared decision regarding treatment of her depression at her next appointment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics¹ and World Health Organization² recommend exclusive breastfeeding of infants for their first 6 months of life and support it as a complement to other foods through and beyond age 2. Untreated conditions such as postpartum depression impact maternal well-being and may interfere with parenting and child development. In fact, untreated maternal mental health leads to an increased risk of suicide, reduced maternal economic productivity, and worsened health for both mother and child.³

Because many women experience psychiatric symptoms before they become pregnant as well as during the perinatal period, questions often arise regardingthe use of psychiatric medications—specifically antidepressants—and their safety in patients who are breastfeeding. Key considerations regarding medication management should include the patient’s previous response to medications, the risks of untreated maternal mental illness, and evidence regarding risks and benefits in lactation. This article summarizes where to find evidence-based lactation information, how to interpret that information, and what information is available for select antidepressants.

Locating lactation information

Start by checking the manufacturer’s medication labeling (“prescribing information”) and medication information resources such as Micromedex (www.micromedexsolutions.com) and Lexicomp (www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/lexicomp). The updated labeling includes a risk/benefit assessment of available data on the risk for continued use of a medication during pregnancy compared to the risk if a medication is discontinued and the disorder goes untreated.⁴ The “breastfeeding considerations” section of medication labeling include details regarding the presence of the medication and the amount of it in breastmilk, adverse events in infants exposed to the medication through breastmilk, and additional pertinent data as applicable. Lexicomp includes information regarding breastfeeding considerations, and a subscription may also include access to Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation’s information pages. Micromedex includes its own lactation safety rating scale score.

Several other resources can help guide clinicians toward patient-specific recommendations. From the National Library of Medicine, LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/) allows clinicians to search for specific medications to see what information exists pertaining to medication levels in breastmilk and infant blood as well as potential adverse effects in the nursing infant and/or on lactation and breastmilk.⁵ LactMed provides information regarding alternative medications to consider and references from which the information was gathered.

Another helpful resource is the InfantRisk Center from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, which includes a free call center for parents and clinicians who have questions about medications and breastfeeding (806-352-2519; Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm CST). The InfantRisk Center also offers smartphone apps for clinicians as well as individuals who are pregnant or breastfeeding.⁶ Two commonly referenced textbooks on medications and breastfeeding include Hale’s Medication and Mother’s Milk 2023: A Manual of Lactational Pharmacology⁷ and Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation: A Reference Guide to Fetal and Neonatal Risk.⁸

Continue to: How to interpret the information

How to interpret the information

Medication levels in breastmilk are affected by several properties, such as the medication’s molecular weight, protein binding, pKa, and volume of distribution. A few commonly used terms in lactation literature for medications include the relative infant dose (RID) and milk/plasma (M/P) ratio.

RID provides information about relative medication exposure for the infant. It is calculated by dividing the infant’s dose of a medication via breastmilk (mg/kg/d) by the mother’s dose (mg/kg/d).⁷ Most consider an RID <10% to be safe.⁷

M/P is the ratio of medication concentration in the mother’s milk divided by the medication concentration in the mother’s plasma. A ratio <1 is preferable and generally indicates that a low level of medication has been transferred to human milk.⁷

Another factor that can be evaluated is protein binding. Medications that are highly protein-bound do not tend to pass as easily into breastmilk and can minimize infant exposure.

Several risk categorization systems are available, depending upon the resource used to obtain lactation information. One common system is Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories, with 5 safety levels ranging from L1 (breastfeeding compatible) to L5 (hazardous) (Table 1⁷). Briggs et al⁸ utilize 7 categories to summarize recommendations ranging from breastfeeding-compatible to contraindicated; however, it is important to read the full medication monograph in the context of the rating provided.Table 2^7,8 provides breastfeeding information from Hale’s⁷ and from Briggs et al⁸ for some commonly used antidepressants.

In addition to interpreting available literature, it is also important to consider patient-specific factors, including (but not limited to) the severity of the patient’s psychiatric disorder and their previous response to medication. If a mother achieved remission on a particular antidepressant in the past, it may be preferable to restart that agent rather than trial a new medication.

CASE CONTINUED

Two weeks later and following the use of a variety of resources, Ms. D’s treatment team finds that mirtazapine is rated Probably Compatible (L3 in Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories), with an M/P ratio of 0.76.⁷ The RID of mirtazapine ranges from 1.6% to 6.3%, and limited data from infants exposed to maternal use of mirtazapine during breastfeeding have not shown adverse effects.⁵ The treatment team administers the EDPS to Ms. D again and she scores 18. Given Ms. D’s previous remission with mirtazapine, current severity of depressive symptoms, and the risk/benefit assessment from lactation resources, the decision is made to restart mirtazapine 15 mg/d at bedtime with the option to titrate up if indicated. Ms. D plans to continue breastfeeding and will monitor for signs of any adverse effects in her infant. The Figure provides a summary of navigating this individualized decision with patients.

Related Resources

• MotherToBaby. Medication fact sheets, option to contact for no-charge consultation, free patient education information materials. www.mothertobaby.org
• Reprotox. Summaries on effects of medications on pregnancy, reproduction, and development (subscription required). www.reprotox.org

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Citalopram • Celexa
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nortriptyline • Pamelor
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

Ms. D, age 32, recently gave birth to her second child. Her psychiatric history includes major depressive disorder. She had been stable on mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for 3 years. Based on clinical stability and patient preference, Ms. D elected to taper off mirtazapine 1 month prior to delivery. Now at 1 month postdelivery, Ms. D notes the reemergence of her depressive symptoms; during her child’s latest pediatrician visit, she scores 15 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). She breastfeeds her baby and wants more information on the safety of taking an antidepressant while breastfeeding.

Ms. D discusses her previous use of mirtazapine with her treatment team. The team reviews the available resources with Ms. D and together they plan to make a shared decision regarding treatment of her depression at her next appointment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics¹ and World Health Organization² recommend exclusive breastfeeding of infants for their first 6 months of life and support it as a complement to other foods through and beyond age 2. Untreated conditions such as postpartum depression impact maternal well-being and may interfere with parenting and child development. In fact, untreated maternal mental health leads to an increased risk of suicide, reduced maternal economic productivity, and worsened health for both mother and child.³

Because many women experience psychiatric symptoms before they become pregnant as well as during the perinatal period, questions often arise regardingthe use of psychiatric medications—specifically antidepressants—and their safety in patients who are breastfeeding. Key considerations regarding medication management should include the patient’s previous response to medications, the risks of untreated maternal mental illness, and evidence regarding risks and benefits in lactation. This article summarizes where to find evidence-based lactation information, how to interpret that information, and what information is available for select antidepressants.

Locating lactation information

Start by checking the manufacturer’s medication labeling (“prescribing information”) and medication information resources such as Micromedex (www.micromedexsolutions.com) and Lexicomp (www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/lexicomp). The updated labeling includes a risk/benefit assessment of available data on the risk for continued use of a medication during pregnancy compared to the risk if a medication is discontinued and the disorder goes untreated.⁴ The “breastfeeding considerations” section of medication labeling include details regarding the presence of the medication and the amount of it in breastmilk, adverse events in infants exposed to the medication through breastmilk, and additional pertinent data as applicable. Lexicomp includes information regarding breastfeeding considerations, and a subscription may also include access to Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation’s information pages. Micromedex includes its own lactation safety rating scale score.

Several other resources can help guide clinicians toward patient-specific recommendations. From the National Library of Medicine, LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/) allows clinicians to search for specific medications to see what information exists pertaining to medication levels in breastmilk and infant blood as well as potential adverse effects in the nursing infant and/or on lactation and breastmilk.⁵ LactMed provides information regarding alternative medications to consider and references from which the information was gathered.

Another helpful resource is the InfantRisk Center from Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, which includes a free call center for parents and clinicians who have questions about medications and breastfeeding (806-352-2519; Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm CST). The InfantRisk Center also offers smartphone apps for clinicians as well as individuals who are pregnant or breastfeeding.⁶ Two commonly referenced textbooks on medications and breastfeeding include Hale’s Medication and Mother’s Milk 2023: A Manual of Lactational Pharmacology⁷ and Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation: A Reference Guide to Fetal and Neonatal Risk.⁸

Continue to: How to interpret the information

How to interpret the information

Medication levels in breastmilk are affected by several properties, such as the medication’s molecular weight, protein binding, pKa, and volume of distribution. A few commonly used terms in lactation literature for medications include the relative infant dose (RID) and milk/plasma (M/P) ratio.

RID provides information about relative medication exposure for the infant. It is calculated by dividing the infant’s dose of a medication via breastmilk (mg/kg/d) by the mother’s dose (mg/kg/d).⁷ Most consider an RID <10% to be safe.⁷

M/P is the ratio of medication concentration in the mother’s milk divided by the medication concentration in the mother’s plasma. A ratio <1 is preferable and generally indicates that a low level of medication has been transferred to human milk.⁷

Another factor that can be evaluated is protein binding. Medications that are highly protein-bound do not tend to pass as easily into breastmilk and can minimize infant exposure.

Several risk categorization systems are available, depending upon the resource used to obtain lactation information. One common system is Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories, with 5 safety levels ranging from L1 (breastfeeding compatible) to L5 (hazardous) (Table 1⁷). Briggs et al⁸ utilize 7 categories to summarize recommendations ranging from breastfeeding-compatible to contraindicated; however, it is important to read the full medication monograph in the context of the rating provided.Table 2^7,8 provides breastfeeding information from Hale’s⁷ and from Briggs et al⁸ for some commonly used antidepressants.

In addition to interpreting available literature, it is also important to consider patient-specific factors, including (but not limited to) the severity of the patient’s psychiatric disorder and their previous response to medication. If a mother achieved remission on a particular antidepressant in the past, it may be preferable to restart that agent rather than trial a new medication.

CASE CONTINUED

Two weeks later and following the use of a variety of resources, Ms. D’s treatment team finds that mirtazapine is rated Probably Compatible (L3 in Hale’s Lactation Risk Categories), with an M/P ratio of 0.76.⁷ The RID of mirtazapine ranges from 1.6% to 6.3%, and limited data from infants exposed to maternal use of mirtazapine during breastfeeding have not shown adverse effects.⁵ The treatment team administers the EDPS to Ms. D again and she scores 18. Given Ms. D’s previous remission with mirtazapine, current severity of depressive symptoms, and the risk/benefit assessment from lactation resources, the decision is made to restart mirtazapine 15 mg/d at bedtime with the option to titrate up if indicated. Ms. D plans to continue breastfeeding and will monitor for signs of any adverse effects in her infant. The Figure provides a summary of navigating this individualized decision with patients.

Related Resources

• MotherToBaby. Medication fact sheets, option to contact for no-charge consultation, free patient education information materials. www.mothertobaby.org
• Reprotox. Summaries on effects of medications on pregnancy, reproduction, and development (subscription required). www.reprotox.org

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Citalopram • Celexa
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Nortriptyline • Pamelor
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

CASE Depressed and anxious

Five years ago, Ms. X, age 60, was diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) with anxiety. This diagnosis was established by a previous psychiatrist. She presents to a clinic for a second opinion.

Since her diagnosis, Ms. X has experienced sad mood, anhedonia, difficulty falling asleep, increased appetite and weight, and decreased concentration and attention. Her anxiety stems from her inability to work, which causes her to worry about her children. In the clinic, the treatment team conducts the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) with Ms. X. She scores 16 on the PHQ-9, indicating moderately severe depression, and scores 12 on the GAD-7, indicating moderate anxiety.

Ms. X’s current medication regimen consists of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 225 mg/d, trazodone 100 mg/d at bedtime, and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. She reports no significant improvement of her symptoms from these medications. Additionally, Ms. X reports that in the past she had been prescribed fluoxetine, citalopram, and duloxetine, but she cannot recall the dosages.

Ms. X appears appropriately groomed, maintains appropriate eye contact, has clear speech, and does not show evidence of internal stimulation; however, she has difficulty following instructions. She makes negative comments about herself such as “I’m worthless” and “Nobody cares about me.” The treatment team decides to taper Ms. X off venlafaxine XR and initiates sertraline 50 mg/d, while continuing trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. The team refers her for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to address her cognitive distortions, sad mood, and anxiety. Ms. X is asked to follow up with Psychiatry in 1 week.

EVALUATION Unusual behavior

At her CBT intake, Ms. X endorses depression and anxiety. Her PHQ-9 score at this visit is 19 (moderately severe depression) and GAD-7 score is 16 (severe anxiety). The psychologist notes that Ms. X is able to complete activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living without assistance. Ms. X denies any use of illicit substances or alcohol. No gross memory impairment is noted during this appointment, though Ms. X exhibits unusual behavior, including exiting and re-entering the clinic multiple times to repeatedly ask about follow-up appointments. The psychologist concludes that Ms. X’s presentation and behavior can be explained by MDD and pseudodementia.

[polldaddy:12189562]

The authors’ observations

Pseudodementia gained recognition in clinical research >100 years ago.¹ Officially coined by Kiloh in 1961, the term was used broadly to categorize psychiatric cases that present like dementia but are the result of reversible causes. More recently, it has been used to describe older adults who present with cognitive deficits in the context of depressive symptoms.² The goal of evaluation is to determine if the primary issue is a cognitive disorder or a depressive episode. DSM-5-TR does not classify pseudodementia as a distinct diagnosis, but instead categorizes its symptoms as components under other major diagnostic categories. Patients can present with MDD and associated cognitive symptoms, or with a cognitive disorder with depressive symptoms, which would be diagnosed as a cognitive disorder with a major depressive-like episode.³

Pseudodementia is rare. Brodaty et al⁴ found the prevalence of pseudodementia in primary care settings was 0.6%. Older adults (age >65) who live alone are at increased risk of developing pseudodementia, which can be worsened by poor social support and acute psychosocial and environmental changes.⁵ A key characteristic of this disorder is that as the patient’s depressed mood improves, their memory and cognition also improve.⁶Table 1^3,6 outlines overlapping features of MDD and pseudodementia.

Continue to: EVALUATION Worsening depression

At her Psychiatry follow-up appointment, Ms. X reports that her mood is worse since she ended the relationship with her partner and she feels anxious because the partner was financially supporting her. Her PHQ-9 score is 24 (severe depression) and her GAD-7 score is 12 (moderate anxiety). Ms. X reports tolerating her transition from venlafaxine XR 225 mg/d to sertraline 50 mg/d well.

Additionally, Ms. X reports her children have called her “useless” since she continues to have difficulties following through on household tasks, even though she has no physical impairments that prevent her from completing them. The Psychiatry team observes that Ms. X has no problems walking or moving her arms or legs.

The Psychiatry team administers the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Ms. X scores 22, indicating mild impairment.

The team recommends a neuropsychological assessment to determine if this MoCA score is due to a cognitive disorder or is rooted in her mood symptoms. The team also recommends an MRI of the brain, complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), and urinalysis (UA).

[polldaddy:12189567]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Neuropsychological assessments are important tools for exploring the behavioral manifestations of brain dysfunction (Table 2).⁷ These assessments factor in elements of neurology, psychiatry, and psychology to provide information about the diagnosis, prognosis, and functional status of patients with medical conditions, especially those with neurocognitive and psychiatric disorders. They combine information from the patient and collateral interviews, behavioral observations, a review of patient records, and objective tests of motor, emotional, and cognitive function.

Among other uses, neuropsychological assessments can help identify depression in patients with neurologic impairment, determine the diagnosis and plan of care for patients with concussions, determine the risk of a motor vehicle crash in patients with cognitive impairment, and distinguish Alzheimer disease from vascular dementia.⁸ Components of such assessments include the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) to assess anxiety, the Dementia Rating Scale-2 and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module to assess dementia, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to assess depression.⁹

EVALUATION Continued cognitive decline

A different psychologist performs the neuro­psychological assessment, who conducts the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Update to determine if Ms. X is experiencing cognitive impairment. Her immediate memory, visuospatial/constructions, language, attention, and delayed memory are significantly impaired for someone her age. The psychologist also administers the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV and finds Ms. X’s general cognitive ability is within the low average range of intellectual functioning as measured by Full-Scale IQ. Ms. X scores 29 on the BDI-II, indicating significant depressive symptoms, and 13 on the BAI, indicating mild anxiety symptoms.

Ms. X is diagnosed with MDD and an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. The psychologist recommends she start CBT to address her mood and anxiety symptoms.

Upon reviewing the results with Ms. X, the treatment team again recommends a brain MRI, CBC, CMP, and UA to rule out organic causes of her cognitive decline. Ms. X decides against the MRI and laboratory workup and elects to continue her present medication regimen and CBT.

Several weeks later, Ms. X’s family brings her to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of worsening mood, decreased personal hygiene, increased irritability, and further cognitive decline. They report she is having an increasingly difficult time remembering things such as where she parked her car. The ED team decides to discontinue clonazepam but continues sertraline and trazodone.

Continue to: CBC, CMP, and UA...

CBC, CMP, and UA are unremarkable. Ms. X undergoes a brain CT scan without contrast, which reveals hyperdense lesions in the inferior left tentorium, posterior fossa. A subsequent brain MRI with contrast reveals a dural-based enhancing mass, inferior to the left tentorium, in the left posterior fossa measuring 2.2 cm x 2.1 cm, suggestive of a meningioma. The team orders a Neurosurgery consult.

[polldaddy:12189571]

The authors’ observations

While most brain tumors are secondary to metastasis, meningiomas are the most common primary CNS tumor. Typically, they are asymptomatic; their diagnosis is often delayed until the patient presents with psychiatric symptoms without any focal neurologic findings. The frontal lobe is the most common location of meningioma. Data from 48 case reports of patients with meningiomas and psychiatric symptoms suggest symptoms do not always correlate with specific brain regions.^10,11

Indications for neuroimaging in cases such as Ms. X include an abrupt change in behavior or personality, lack of response to psychiatric treatment, presence of focal neurologic signs, and an unusual psychiatric presentation and development of symptoms.¹¹

TREATMENT Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery recommends and performs a suboccipital craniotomy for biopsy and resection. Ms. X tolerates the procedure well. A meningioma is found in the posterior fossa, near the cerebellar convexity. A biopsy finds no evidence of malignancies.

At her postoperative follow-up appointment several days after the procedure, Ms. X reports new-onset hearing loss and tinnitus.

[polldaddy:12189747]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Patients who require neurosurgery typically already carry a heavy psychiatric burden, which makes it challenging to determine the exact psychiatric consequences of neuro­surgery.^12-14 For example, research shows that temporal lobe resection and temporal lobectomy for treatment-resistant epilepsy can lead to an exacerbation of baseline psychiatric symptoms and the development of new symptoms (31% to 34%).^15,16 However, Bommakanti et al¹³ found no new psychiatric symptoms after resection of meningiomas, and surgery seemed to play a role in ameliorating psychiatric symptoms in patients with intracranial tumors. Research attempting to document the psychiatric sequelae of neurosurgery has had mixed results, and it is difficult to determine what effects brain surgery has on mental health.

OUTCOME Minimal improvement

Several weeks after neurosurgery, Ms. X and her family report her mood is improved. Her PHQ-9 score improves to 15, but her GAD-7 score increases to 13, 1 point above her previous score.

The treatment team recommends Ms. X continue taking sertraline 50 mg/d and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. Ms. X’s family reports her cognition and memory have not improved; her MoCA score increases by 1 point to 23. The treatment team discusses with Ms. X and her family the possibility that her cognitive problems maybe better explained as a neurocognitive disorder rather than as a result of the meningioma, since her MoCA score has not significantly improved. Ms. X and her family decide to seek a second opinion from a neurologist.

Bottom Line

Pseudodementia is a term used to describe older adults who present with cognitive issues in the context of depressive symptoms. Even in the absence of focal findings, neuroimaging should be considered as part of the workup in patients who continue to experience a progressive decline in mood and cognitive function.

Related Resources

• Moller MD, Parmenter BA, Lane DW. Neuropsychological testing: a useful but underutilized resource. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(11):40-46,51.
• Pollak J. Psychological/neuropsychological testing: when to refer for reexamination. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(9):18- 19,30-31,37. doi:10.12788/cp.0157

Drug Brand Names

Citalopram • Celexa
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine extended- release • Effexor XR

CASE Depressed and anxious

Five years ago, Ms. X, age 60, was diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) with anxiety. This diagnosis was established by a previous psychiatrist. She presents to a clinic for a second opinion.

Since her diagnosis, Ms. X has experienced sad mood, anhedonia, difficulty falling asleep, increased appetite and weight, and decreased concentration and attention. Her anxiety stems from her inability to work, which causes her to worry about her children. In the clinic, the treatment team conducts the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) with Ms. X. She scores 16 on the PHQ-9, indicating moderately severe depression, and scores 12 on the GAD-7, indicating moderate anxiety.

Ms. X’s current medication regimen consists of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 225 mg/d, trazodone 100 mg/d at bedtime, and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. She reports no significant improvement of her symptoms from these medications. Additionally, Ms. X reports that in the past she had been prescribed fluoxetine, citalopram, and duloxetine, but she cannot recall the dosages.

Ms. X appears appropriately groomed, maintains appropriate eye contact, has clear speech, and does not show evidence of internal stimulation; however, she has difficulty following instructions. She makes negative comments about herself such as “I’m worthless” and “Nobody cares about me.” The treatment team decides to taper Ms. X off venlafaxine XR and initiates sertraline 50 mg/d, while continuing trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. The team refers her for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to address her cognitive distortions, sad mood, and anxiety. Ms. X is asked to follow up with Psychiatry in 1 week.

EVALUATION Unusual behavior

At her CBT intake, Ms. X endorses depression and anxiety. Her PHQ-9 score at this visit is 19 (moderately severe depression) and GAD-7 score is 16 (severe anxiety). The psychologist notes that Ms. X is able to complete activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living without assistance. Ms. X denies any use of illicit substances or alcohol. No gross memory impairment is noted during this appointment, though Ms. X exhibits unusual behavior, including exiting and re-entering the clinic multiple times to repeatedly ask about follow-up appointments. The psychologist concludes that Ms. X’s presentation and behavior can be explained by MDD and pseudodementia.

[polldaddy:12189562]

The authors’ observations

Pseudodementia gained recognition in clinical research >100 years ago.¹ Officially coined by Kiloh in 1961, the term was used broadly to categorize psychiatric cases that present like dementia but are the result of reversible causes. More recently, it has been used to describe older adults who present with cognitive deficits in the context of depressive symptoms.² The goal of evaluation is to determine if the primary issue is a cognitive disorder or a depressive episode. DSM-5-TR does not classify pseudodementia as a distinct diagnosis, but instead categorizes its symptoms as components under other major diagnostic categories. Patients can present with MDD and associated cognitive symptoms, or with a cognitive disorder with depressive symptoms, which would be diagnosed as a cognitive disorder with a major depressive-like episode.³

Pseudodementia is rare. Brodaty et al⁴ found the prevalence of pseudodementia in primary care settings was 0.6%. Older adults (age >65) who live alone are at increased risk of developing pseudodementia, which can be worsened by poor social support and acute psychosocial and environmental changes.⁵ A key characteristic of this disorder is that as the patient’s depressed mood improves, their memory and cognition also improve.⁶Table 1^3,6 outlines overlapping features of MDD and pseudodementia.

Continue to: EVALUATION Worsening depression

At her Psychiatry follow-up appointment, Ms. X reports that her mood is worse since she ended the relationship with her partner and she feels anxious because the partner was financially supporting her. Her PHQ-9 score is 24 (severe depression) and her GAD-7 score is 12 (moderate anxiety). Ms. X reports tolerating her transition from venlafaxine XR 225 mg/d to sertraline 50 mg/d well.

Additionally, Ms. X reports her children have called her “useless” since she continues to have difficulties following through on household tasks, even though she has no physical impairments that prevent her from completing them. The Psychiatry team observes that Ms. X has no problems walking or moving her arms or legs.

The Psychiatry team administers the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Ms. X scores 22, indicating mild impairment.

The team recommends a neuropsychological assessment to determine if this MoCA score is due to a cognitive disorder or is rooted in her mood symptoms. The team also recommends an MRI of the brain, complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), and urinalysis (UA).

[polldaddy:12189567]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Neuropsychological assessments are important tools for exploring the behavioral manifestations of brain dysfunction (Table 2).⁷ These assessments factor in elements of neurology, psychiatry, and psychology to provide information about the diagnosis, prognosis, and functional status of patients with medical conditions, especially those with neurocognitive and psychiatric disorders. They combine information from the patient and collateral interviews, behavioral observations, a review of patient records, and objective tests of motor, emotional, and cognitive function.

Among other uses, neuropsychological assessments can help identify depression in patients with neurologic impairment, determine the diagnosis and plan of care for patients with concussions, determine the risk of a motor vehicle crash in patients with cognitive impairment, and distinguish Alzheimer disease from vascular dementia.⁸ Components of such assessments include the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) to assess anxiety, the Dementia Rating Scale-2 and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module to assess dementia, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to assess depression.⁹

EVALUATION Continued cognitive decline

A different psychologist performs the neuro­psychological assessment, who conducts the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Update to determine if Ms. X is experiencing cognitive impairment. Her immediate memory, visuospatial/constructions, language, attention, and delayed memory are significantly impaired for someone her age. The psychologist also administers the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV and finds Ms. X’s general cognitive ability is within the low average range of intellectual functioning as measured by Full-Scale IQ. Ms. X scores 29 on the BDI-II, indicating significant depressive symptoms, and 13 on the BAI, indicating mild anxiety symptoms.

Ms. X is diagnosed with MDD and an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. The psychologist recommends she start CBT to address her mood and anxiety symptoms.

Upon reviewing the results with Ms. X, the treatment team again recommends a brain MRI, CBC, CMP, and UA to rule out organic causes of her cognitive decline. Ms. X decides against the MRI and laboratory workup and elects to continue her present medication regimen and CBT.

Several weeks later, Ms. X’s family brings her to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of worsening mood, decreased personal hygiene, increased irritability, and further cognitive decline. They report she is having an increasingly difficult time remembering things such as where she parked her car. The ED team decides to discontinue clonazepam but continues sertraline and trazodone.

Continue to: CBC, CMP, and UA...

CBC, CMP, and UA are unremarkable. Ms. X undergoes a brain CT scan without contrast, which reveals hyperdense lesions in the inferior left tentorium, posterior fossa. A subsequent brain MRI with contrast reveals a dural-based enhancing mass, inferior to the left tentorium, in the left posterior fossa measuring 2.2 cm x 2.1 cm, suggestive of a meningioma. The team orders a Neurosurgery consult.

[polldaddy:12189571]

The authors’ observations

While most brain tumors are secondary to metastasis, meningiomas are the most common primary CNS tumor. Typically, they are asymptomatic; their diagnosis is often delayed until the patient presents with psychiatric symptoms without any focal neurologic findings. The frontal lobe is the most common location of meningioma. Data from 48 case reports of patients with meningiomas and psychiatric symptoms suggest symptoms do not always correlate with specific brain regions.^10,11

Indications for neuroimaging in cases such as Ms. X include an abrupt change in behavior or personality, lack of response to psychiatric treatment, presence of focal neurologic signs, and an unusual psychiatric presentation and development of symptoms.¹¹

TREATMENT Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery recommends and performs a suboccipital craniotomy for biopsy and resection. Ms. X tolerates the procedure well. A meningioma is found in the posterior fossa, near the cerebellar convexity. A biopsy finds no evidence of malignancies.

At her postoperative follow-up appointment several days after the procedure, Ms. X reports new-onset hearing loss and tinnitus.

[polldaddy:12189747]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Patients who require neurosurgery typically already carry a heavy psychiatric burden, which makes it challenging to determine the exact psychiatric consequences of neuro­surgery.^12-14 For example, research shows that temporal lobe resection and temporal lobectomy for treatment-resistant epilepsy can lead to an exacerbation of baseline psychiatric symptoms and the development of new symptoms (31% to 34%).^15,16 However, Bommakanti et al¹³ found no new psychiatric symptoms after resection of meningiomas, and surgery seemed to play a role in ameliorating psychiatric symptoms in patients with intracranial tumors. Research attempting to document the psychiatric sequelae of neurosurgery has had mixed results, and it is difficult to determine what effects brain surgery has on mental health.

OUTCOME Minimal improvement

Several weeks after neurosurgery, Ms. X and her family report her mood is improved. Her PHQ-9 score improves to 15, but her GAD-7 score increases to 13, 1 point above her previous score.

The treatment team recommends Ms. X continue taking sertraline 50 mg/d and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. Ms. X’s family reports her cognition and memory have not improved; her MoCA score increases by 1 point to 23. The treatment team discusses with Ms. X and her family the possibility that her cognitive problems maybe better explained as a neurocognitive disorder rather than as a result of the meningioma, since her MoCA score has not significantly improved. Ms. X and her family decide to seek a second opinion from a neurologist.

Bottom Line

Pseudodementia is a term used to describe older adults who present with cognitive issues in the context of depressive symptoms. Even in the absence of focal findings, neuroimaging should be considered as part of the workup in patients who continue to experience a progressive decline in mood and cognitive function.

Related Resources

• Moller MD, Parmenter BA, Lane DW. Neuropsychological testing: a useful but underutilized resource. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(11):40-46,51.
• Pollak J. Psychological/neuropsychological testing: when to refer for reexamination. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(9):18- 19,30-31,37. doi:10.12788/cp.0157

Drug Brand Names

Citalopram • Celexa
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine extended- release • Effexor XR

CASE Depressed and anxious

Five years ago, Ms. X, age 60, was diagnosed with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) with anxiety. This diagnosis was established by a previous psychiatrist. She presents to a clinic for a second opinion.

Since her diagnosis, Ms. X has experienced sad mood, anhedonia, difficulty falling asleep, increased appetite and weight, and decreased concentration and attention. Her anxiety stems from her inability to work, which causes her to worry about her children. In the clinic, the treatment team conducts the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) with Ms. X. She scores 16 on the PHQ-9, indicating moderately severe depression, and scores 12 on the GAD-7, indicating moderate anxiety.

Ms. X’s current medication regimen consists of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 225 mg/d, trazodone 100 mg/d at bedtime, and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. She reports no significant improvement of her symptoms from these medications. Additionally, Ms. X reports that in the past she had been prescribed fluoxetine, citalopram, and duloxetine, but she cannot recall the dosages.

Ms. X appears appropriately groomed, maintains appropriate eye contact, has clear speech, and does not show evidence of internal stimulation; however, she has difficulty following instructions. She makes negative comments about herself such as “I’m worthless” and “Nobody cares about me.” The treatment team decides to taper Ms. X off venlafaxine XR and initiates sertraline 50 mg/d, while continuing trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime and clonazepam 1 mg twice daily. The team refers her for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to address her cognitive distortions, sad mood, and anxiety. Ms. X is asked to follow up with Psychiatry in 1 week.

EVALUATION Unusual behavior

At her CBT intake, Ms. X endorses depression and anxiety. Her PHQ-9 score at this visit is 19 (moderately severe depression) and GAD-7 score is 16 (severe anxiety). The psychologist notes that Ms. X is able to complete activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living without assistance. Ms. X denies any use of illicit substances or alcohol. No gross memory impairment is noted during this appointment, though Ms. X exhibits unusual behavior, including exiting and re-entering the clinic multiple times to repeatedly ask about follow-up appointments. The psychologist concludes that Ms. X’s presentation and behavior can be explained by MDD and pseudodementia.

[polldaddy:12189562]

The authors’ observations

Pseudodementia gained recognition in clinical research >100 years ago.¹ Officially coined by Kiloh in 1961, the term was used broadly to categorize psychiatric cases that present like dementia but are the result of reversible causes. More recently, it has been used to describe older adults who present with cognitive deficits in the context of depressive symptoms.² The goal of evaluation is to determine if the primary issue is a cognitive disorder or a depressive episode. DSM-5-TR does not classify pseudodementia as a distinct diagnosis, but instead categorizes its symptoms as components under other major diagnostic categories. Patients can present with MDD and associated cognitive symptoms, or with a cognitive disorder with depressive symptoms, which would be diagnosed as a cognitive disorder with a major depressive-like episode.³

Pseudodementia is rare. Brodaty et al⁴ found the prevalence of pseudodementia in primary care settings was 0.6%. Older adults (age >65) who live alone are at increased risk of developing pseudodementia, which can be worsened by poor social support and acute psychosocial and environmental changes.⁵ A key characteristic of this disorder is that as the patient’s depressed mood improves, their memory and cognition also improve.⁶Table 1^3,6 outlines overlapping features of MDD and pseudodementia.

Continue to: EVALUATION Worsening depression

At her Psychiatry follow-up appointment, Ms. X reports that her mood is worse since she ended the relationship with her partner and she feels anxious because the partner was financially supporting her. Her PHQ-9 score is 24 (severe depression) and her GAD-7 score is 12 (moderate anxiety). Ms. X reports tolerating her transition from venlafaxine XR 225 mg/d to sertraline 50 mg/d well.

Additionally, Ms. X reports her children have called her “useless” since she continues to have difficulties following through on household tasks, even though she has no physical impairments that prevent her from completing them. The Psychiatry team observes that Ms. X has no problems walking or moving her arms or legs.

The Psychiatry team administers the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Ms. X scores 22, indicating mild impairment.

The team recommends a neuropsychological assessment to determine if this MoCA score is due to a cognitive disorder or is rooted in her mood symptoms. The team also recommends an MRI of the brain, complete blood count (CBC), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), and urinalysis (UA).

[polldaddy:12189567]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Neuropsychological assessments are important tools for exploring the behavioral manifestations of brain dysfunction (Table 2).⁷ These assessments factor in elements of neurology, psychiatry, and psychology to provide information about the diagnosis, prognosis, and functional status of patients with medical conditions, especially those with neurocognitive and psychiatric disorders. They combine information from the patient and collateral interviews, behavioral observations, a review of patient records, and objective tests of motor, emotional, and cognitive function.

Among other uses, neuropsychological assessments can help identify depression in patients with neurologic impairment, determine the diagnosis and plan of care for patients with concussions, determine the risk of a motor vehicle crash in patients with cognitive impairment, and distinguish Alzheimer disease from vascular dementia.⁸ Components of such assessments include the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) to assess anxiety, the Dementia Rating Scale-2 and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module to assess dementia, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to assess depression.⁹

EVALUATION Continued cognitive decline

A different psychologist performs the neuro­psychological assessment, who conducts the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status Update to determine if Ms. X is experiencing cognitive impairment. Her immediate memory, visuospatial/constructions, language, attention, and delayed memory are significantly impaired for someone her age. The psychologist also administers the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV and finds Ms. X’s general cognitive ability is within the low average range of intellectual functioning as measured by Full-Scale IQ. Ms. X scores 29 on the BDI-II, indicating significant depressive symptoms, and 13 on the BAI, indicating mild anxiety symptoms.

Ms. X is diagnosed with MDD and an unspecified neurocognitive disorder. The psychologist recommends she start CBT to address her mood and anxiety symptoms.

Upon reviewing the results with Ms. X, the treatment team again recommends a brain MRI, CBC, CMP, and UA to rule out organic causes of her cognitive decline. Ms. X decides against the MRI and laboratory workup and elects to continue her present medication regimen and CBT.

Several weeks later, Ms. X’s family brings her to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of worsening mood, decreased personal hygiene, increased irritability, and further cognitive decline. They report she is having an increasingly difficult time remembering things such as where she parked her car. The ED team decides to discontinue clonazepam but continues sertraline and trazodone.

Continue to: CBC, CMP, and UA...

CBC, CMP, and UA are unremarkable. Ms. X undergoes a brain CT scan without contrast, which reveals hyperdense lesions in the inferior left tentorium, posterior fossa. A subsequent brain MRI with contrast reveals a dural-based enhancing mass, inferior to the left tentorium, in the left posterior fossa measuring 2.2 cm x 2.1 cm, suggestive of a meningioma. The team orders a Neurosurgery consult.

[polldaddy:12189571]

The authors’ observations

While most brain tumors are secondary to metastasis, meningiomas are the most common primary CNS tumor. Typically, they are asymptomatic; their diagnosis is often delayed until the patient presents with psychiatric symptoms without any focal neurologic findings. The frontal lobe is the most common location of meningioma. Data from 48 case reports of patients with meningiomas and psychiatric symptoms suggest symptoms do not always correlate with specific brain regions.^10,11

Indications for neuroimaging in cases such as Ms. X include an abrupt change in behavior or personality, lack of response to psychiatric treatment, presence of focal neurologic signs, and an unusual psychiatric presentation and development of symptoms.¹¹

TREATMENT Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery recommends and performs a suboccipital craniotomy for biopsy and resection. Ms. X tolerates the procedure well. A meningioma is found in the posterior fossa, near the cerebellar convexity. A biopsy finds no evidence of malignancies.

At her postoperative follow-up appointment several days after the procedure, Ms. X reports new-onset hearing loss and tinnitus.

[polldaddy:12189747]

Continue to: The authors' observations

Patients who require neurosurgery typically already carry a heavy psychiatric burden, which makes it challenging to determine the exact psychiatric consequences of neuro­surgery.^12-14 For example, research shows that temporal lobe resection and temporal lobectomy for treatment-resistant epilepsy can lead to an exacerbation of baseline psychiatric symptoms and the development of new symptoms (31% to 34%).^15,16 However, Bommakanti et al¹³ found no new psychiatric symptoms after resection of meningiomas, and surgery seemed to play a role in ameliorating psychiatric symptoms in patients with intracranial tumors. Research attempting to document the psychiatric sequelae of neurosurgery has had mixed results, and it is difficult to determine what effects brain surgery has on mental health.

OUTCOME Minimal improvement

Several weeks after neurosurgery, Ms. X and her family report her mood is improved. Her PHQ-9 score improves to 15, but her GAD-7 score increases to 13, 1 point above her previous score.

The treatment team recommends Ms. X continue taking sertraline 50 mg/d and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. Ms. X’s family reports her cognition and memory have not improved; her MoCA score increases by 1 point to 23. The treatment team discusses with Ms. X and her family the possibility that her cognitive problems maybe better explained as a neurocognitive disorder rather than as a result of the meningioma, since her MoCA score has not significantly improved. Ms. X and her family decide to seek a second opinion from a neurologist.

Bottom Line

Pseudodementia is a term used to describe older adults who present with cognitive issues in the context of depressive symptoms. Even in the absence of focal findings, neuroimaging should be considered as part of the workup in patients who continue to experience a progressive decline in mood and cognitive function.

Related Resources

• Moller MD, Parmenter BA, Lane DW. Neuropsychological testing: a useful but underutilized resource. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(11):40-46,51.
• Pollak J. Psychological/neuropsychological testing: when to refer for reexamination. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(9):18- 19,30-31,37. doi:10.12788/cp.0157

Drug Brand Names

Citalopram • Celexa
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Oleptro
Venlafaxine extended- release • Effexor XR