Major Depressive Disorder

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Early onset of disease in patients with major depressive disorder may be linked to a specific inflammatory profile, based on data from 234 individuals.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) remains common, and evidence suggests that it is increasing among younger individuals, but data on early-onset MDD in adults are limited, Ana Paula Anzolin, a graduate student at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

Although previous studies have shown abnormal cytokine production in patients with MDD, the impact of inflammation on MDD and disease onset and progression remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the authors identified outpatients aged 18-85 years with confirmed MDD and scores of at least 8 on the HAM-D scale who were undergoing treatment at a single center. Early onset was defined as a diagnosis of MDD before age 30 years (99 patients) and late onset was defined as a diagnosis at age 30 years and older (135 patients). The researchers measured levels of interleukin-6, IL-1 beta, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha).

Overall, the level of cytokine profiles in early- versus late-onset disease was significantly higher for IL-1B and TNF-alpha (P < .001 for both). The significant difference between early- and late-onset disease remained regardless of comorbidity with autoimmune diseases, the researchers noted.

IL-6 levels were higher in the early-onset group and IL-10 levels were higher in the late-onset group, but these differences were not significant.

“We believe these findings provide a hint that early-onset MDD may be a particular subtype in which the proinflammatory state plays a greater role than in late-onset MDD,” the researchers wrote.

The results also support findings from previous studies that suggest a divergence between early- and late adult–onset depression, they said. More research on early-onset MDD in adults is needed, as these patients tend to have more severe symptoms, more medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and an increased risk of depressive episodes and suicide attempts.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of a control group, the retrospective assessment of disease onset, and the limited cytokines studied, which do not reflect changes in the entire immune network response, the researchers noted.

However, the study is the first known to examine the association of serum cytokines and early- and late-onset MDD in adults, and the results support the use of IL-1B and TNF-alpha as potential treatment targets in the development of new therapies for MDD, they concluded.

The study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa – Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Experiencing cyberbullying as a victim was a significant risk factor for suicidality in early adolescents aged 10-13 years, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Adolescent suicidality, defined as suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, remains a major public health issue, Shay Arnon, MA, of Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel, and colleagues wrote.

Although cyberbullying experiences and perpetration have been associated with mental health issues, their roles as specific suicidality risk factors have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data on cyberbullying experiences collected between July 2018 and January 2021 as part of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, with a diverse population of young adolescents aged 10-13 years.

The study population included 10,414 participants; the mean age was 12 years, 47.6% were female.

Overall, 7.6% of the participants had reported suicidality during the study period. A total of 930 (8.9%) reported experiencing cyberbullying as victims, and 96 (0.9%) reported perpetrating cyberbullying; 66 (69%) of the perpetrators also experienced cyberbullying.

Experiencing cyberbullying was associated with a fourfold increased risk of suicidality (odds ratio, 4.2), that remained significant after controlling for factors including demographics and multiple environmental risk and protective factors, including negative life events, family conflict, parental monitoring, school environment, and racial/ethnic discrimination (OR, 2.5), and after controlling for internalizing and externalizing psychopathology (OR, 1.8).

Adolescents who were both target and perpetrator of offline peer aggression had an increased risk of suicidality (OR, 1.5 for both), and cyberbullying experiences also remained associated with suicidality when included with offline bullying as target and perpetrator (OR, 1.7).

The results contradict previous studies showing an increased risk of suicidality in cyberbullying perpetrators as well as victims, the researchers noted. Some possible reasons for this difference are the anonymity of many cyberbullying perpetrators, and the tendency of many adolescents on social media to make quick-turn comments without thinking of their actions as offensive to others.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, which prevented conclusions about causality, a low-resolution screening for cyberbullying experiences, and the effect of unmeasured confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the collection of data before the COVID-19 pandemic, so the effects of the pandemic on peer online communication and cyberbullying could not be determined.

However, the results suggest that experiencing cyberbullying is significantly associated with suicidality in young adolescents independent of other peer aggression experiences. “Assessment of cyberbullying experiences among children and adolescents should be a component of the comprehensive suicide risk assessment,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic pushed existing cyberbullying problems

“Electronic media use has increased significantly in the early adolescent demographic, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview.

“In many cases, the majority of an adolescent’s peer-peer interactions are now occurring on electronic devices. This has dramatically increased the incidence and prevalence of cyberbullying, making this study very timely and relevant,” said Dr. Loper, who was not involved in the study.

“From an experiential, ethnographic standpoint working on a psychiatric acute crisis stabilization unit, we have consistently recognized cyberbullying as a common and frequent etiology of suicidal ideation or attempt in the adolescents admitted to our unit,” said Dr. Loper. 

“Unfortunately, much of the peer-peer interactions vital to supporting healthy adolescent development are now occurring on electronic devices instead of real-time and in person,” said Dr. Loper. “This comes with great risk to our adolescents and makes them susceptible to multiple potential dangers, not the least of which is cyberbullying.

“The biggest challenge in mitigating the impact of cyberbullying is that most adolescences want to have access to electronic media,” he said. “Limiting adolescents’ access to electronic media, and monitoring adolescents’ electronic media use are vital steps to preventing cyberbullying. Apps such as ‘Bark’ can used by parents to monitor their adolescents’ electronic media activity to ensure their safety and well-being.”

Additional research is needed to focus on other areas in which electronic media use may be affecting adolescents’ social, emotional, and psychological well-being and development, “which will become more and more important as electronic media use in this demographic continues to increase,” Dr. Loper said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Experiencing cyberbullying as a victim was a significant risk factor for suicidality in early adolescents aged 10-13 years, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Adolescent suicidality, defined as suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, remains a major public health issue, Shay Arnon, MA, of Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel, and colleagues wrote.

Although cyberbullying experiences and perpetration have been associated with mental health issues, their roles as specific suicidality risk factors have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data on cyberbullying experiences collected between July 2018 and January 2021 as part of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, with a diverse population of young adolescents aged 10-13 years.

The study population included 10,414 participants; the mean age was 12 years, 47.6% were female.

Overall, 7.6% of the participants had reported suicidality during the study period. A total of 930 (8.9%) reported experiencing cyberbullying as victims, and 96 (0.9%) reported perpetrating cyberbullying; 66 (69%) of the perpetrators also experienced cyberbullying.

Experiencing cyberbullying was associated with a fourfold increased risk of suicidality (odds ratio, 4.2), that remained significant after controlling for factors including demographics and multiple environmental risk and protective factors, including negative life events, family conflict, parental monitoring, school environment, and racial/ethnic discrimination (OR, 2.5), and after controlling for internalizing and externalizing psychopathology (OR, 1.8).

Adolescents who were both target and perpetrator of offline peer aggression had an increased risk of suicidality (OR, 1.5 for both), and cyberbullying experiences also remained associated with suicidality when included with offline bullying as target and perpetrator (OR, 1.7).

The results contradict previous studies showing an increased risk of suicidality in cyberbullying perpetrators as well as victims, the researchers noted. Some possible reasons for this difference are the anonymity of many cyberbullying perpetrators, and the tendency of many adolescents on social media to make quick-turn comments without thinking of their actions as offensive to others.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, which prevented conclusions about causality, a low-resolution screening for cyberbullying experiences, and the effect of unmeasured confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the collection of data before the COVID-19 pandemic, so the effects of the pandemic on peer online communication and cyberbullying could not be determined.

However, the results suggest that experiencing cyberbullying is significantly associated with suicidality in young adolescents independent of other peer aggression experiences. “Assessment of cyberbullying experiences among children and adolescents should be a component of the comprehensive suicide risk assessment,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic pushed existing cyberbullying problems

“Electronic media use has increased significantly in the early adolescent demographic, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview.

“In many cases, the majority of an adolescent’s peer-peer interactions are now occurring on electronic devices. This has dramatically increased the incidence and prevalence of cyberbullying, making this study very timely and relevant,” said Dr. Loper, who was not involved in the study.

“From an experiential, ethnographic standpoint working on a psychiatric acute crisis stabilization unit, we have consistently recognized cyberbullying as a common and frequent etiology of suicidal ideation or attempt in the adolescents admitted to our unit,” said Dr. Loper. 

“Unfortunately, much of the peer-peer interactions vital to supporting healthy adolescent development are now occurring on electronic devices instead of real-time and in person,” said Dr. Loper. “This comes with great risk to our adolescents and makes them susceptible to multiple potential dangers, not the least of which is cyberbullying.

“The biggest challenge in mitigating the impact of cyberbullying is that most adolescences want to have access to electronic media,” he said. “Limiting adolescents’ access to electronic media, and monitoring adolescents’ electronic media use are vital steps to preventing cyberbullying. Apps such as ‘Bark’ can used by parents to monitor their adolescents’ electronic media activity to ensure their safety and well-being.”

Additional research is needed to focus on other areas in which electronic media use may be affecting adolescents’ social, emotional, and psychological well-being and development, “which will become more and more important as electronic media use in this demographic continues to increase,” Dr. Loper said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Experiencing cyberbullying as a victim was a significant risk factor for suicidality in early adolescents aged 10-13 years, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Adolescent suicidality, defined as suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, remains a major public health issue, Shay Arnon, MA, of Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel, and colleagues wrote.

Although cyberbullying experiences and perpetration have been associated with mental health issues, their roles as specific suicidality risk factors have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers analyzed data on cyberbullying experiences collected between July 2018 and January 2021 as part of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, with a diverse population of young adolescents aged 10-13 years.

The study population included 10,414 participants; the mean age was 12 years, 47.6% were female.

Overall, 7.6% of the participants had reported suicidality during the study period. A total of 930 (8.9%) reported experiencing cyberbullying as victims, and 96 (0.9%) reported perpetrating cyberbullying; 66 (69%) of the perpetrators also experienced cyberbullying.

Experiencing cyberbullying was associated with a fourfold increased risk of suicidality (odds ratio, 4.2), that remained significant after controlling for factors including demographics and multiple environmental risk and protective factors, including negative life events, family conflict, parental monitoring, school environment, and racial/ethnic discrimination (OR, 2.5), and after controlling for internalizing and externalizing psychopathology (OR, 1.8).

Adolescents who were both target and perpetrator of offline peer aggression had an increased risk of suicidality (OR, 1.5 for both), and cyberbullying experiences also remained associated with suicidality when included with offline bullying as target and perpetrator (OR, 1.7).

The results contradict previous studies showing an increased risk of suicidality in cyberbullying perpetrators as well as victims, the researchers noted. Some possible reasons for this difference are the anonymity of many cyberbullying perpetrators, and the tendency of many adolescents on social media to make quick-turn comments without thinking of their actions as offensive to others.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, which prevented conclusions about causality, a low-resolution screening for cyberbullying experiences, and the effect of unmeasured confounding variables, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the collection of data before the COVID-19 pandemic, so the effects of the pandemic on peer online communication and cyberbullying could not be determined.

However, the results suggest that experiencing cyberbullying is significantly associated with suicidality in young adolescents independent of other peer aggression experiences. “Assessment of cyberbullying experiences among children and adolescents should be a component of the comprehensive suicide risk assessment,” they concluded.
 

Pandemic pushed existing cyberbullying problems

“Electronic media use has increased significantly in the early adolescent demographic, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Peter L. Loper Jr., MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, said in an interview.

“In many cases, the majority of an adolescent’s peer-peer interactions are now occurring on electronic devices. This has dramatically increased the incidence and prevalence of cyberbullying, making this study very timely and relevant,” said Dr. Loper, who was not involved in the study.

“From an experiential, ethnographic standpoint working on a psychiatric acute crisis stabilization unit, we have consistently recognized cyberbullying as a common and frequent etiology of suicidal ideation or attempt in the adolescents admitted to our unit,” said Dr. Loper. 

“Unfortunately, much of the peer-peer interactions vital to supporting healthy adolescent development are now occurring on electronic devices instead of real-time and in person,” said Dr. Loper. “This comes with great risk to our adolescents and makes them susceptible to multiple potential dangers, not the least of which is cyberbullying.

“The biggest challenge in mitigating the impact of cyberbullying is that most adolescences want to have access to electronic media,” he said. “Limiting adolescents’ access to electronic media, and monitoring adolescents’ electronic media use are vital steps to preventing cyberbullying. Apps such as ‘Bark’ can used by parents to monitor their adolescents’ electronic media activity to ensure their safety and well-being.”

Additional research is needed to focus on other areas in which electronic media use may be affecting adolescents’ social, emotional, and psychological well-being and development, “which will become more and more important as electronic media use in this demographic continues to increase,” Dr. Loper said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Lifespan Brain Institute of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Loper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Longer circadian periods and irregular sleep were significantly associated with mental health problems in adolescents including depression, anxiety, suicidality, social anxiety, and panic disorder, according to results from a European study.

A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.

The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.

Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.

Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.

Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).

Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.

Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).

When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.

Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.

“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.

However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.

“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Longer circadian periods and irregular sleep were significantly associated with mental health problems in adolescents including depression, anxiety, suicidality, social anxiety, and panic disorder, according to results from a European study.

A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.

The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.

Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.

Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.

Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).

Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.

Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).

When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.

Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.

“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.

However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.

“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Longer circadian periods and irregular sleep were significantly associated with mental health problems in adolescents including depression, anxiety, suicidality, social anxiety, and panic disorder, according to results from a European study.

A range of psychiatric symptoms and conditions has been linked to sleep pathologies, wrote Liisa Kuula, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues. Some research suggests that late circadian rhythms and irregular sleep patterns increase the risk for psychiatric conditions, but the association has not been well studied, especially in adolescents, although the onset of psychiatric problems often occurs at this age, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (2022 Apr 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.03.056.), the investigators reviewed data from 342 adolescents who were part of SleepHelsinki! a large cohort study of delayed sleep phase disorder (DSPD) in adolescents. The mean age of the participants was 17.4 years, and 70% were female.

The participants completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and wore temperature loggers for 3 days to assess circadian rhythms. The primary outcome was the impact of circadian dynamics on different psychiatric problems. Delayed Sleep Phase (DSP) behavior was defined as going to sleep later than 1 a.m. at least three times a week.

Circadian length was determined through the temperature loggers worn for 3 days. Most participants also completed 1-week GeneActiv Original actigraphy measurements (wearing the actigraph for 1 week) and responded to the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire, which divided participants into three circadian preference groups: morning, intermediate, and evening. Sleep duration was calculated as total sleep time, sleep quality was estimated by sleep efficiency, and sleep timing was assessed by the midpoint of the sleep period.

Overall, the MINI interview results suggested that approximately one-third (36%) of the teens had at least one psychiatric problem, and 21% had comorbid conditions.

Severe depression was significantly associated with a longer circadian period (P = .002), while suicidality was significantly associated with a later midpoint and more irregular sleep (P = .007 for both).

Participants with agoraphobia slept longer than did those without, the researchers noted (P = .013). However, sleep duration was not significantly associated with other psychiatric conditions.

Manic episodes and psychotic disorders were associated with irregular sleep timing (P < .018 and P < .017, respectively).

When the researchers examined DSP and circadian preferences, they found that 21.5% of individuals with suicidality had characteristics of DSP, as did 21.5% of those with panic disorder.

Individuals with a preference for eveningness were significantly more likely to meet criteria for severe depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder than were those without a preference for eveningness, the researchers noted.

“Our findings are the first to encompass diverse circadian measures alongside an array of psychiatric symptoms in such a focused age range,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The data reflect results from other studies and extend the likely role of circadian patterns in mental wellbeing, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of actual diagnoses from medical records and use of self-reported symptoms, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of polysomnography data and small size of subgroups of the study sample.

However, the results were strengthened by the heterogenous study population and use of multiple measures to examine sleep and circadian rhythms, as well as consideration of personal circadian preferences, the researchers said.

“The importance of overall synchronization with environment is perhaps best highlighted by response to treatment: most psychopathologic symptoms benefit from sleep-targeted therapeutic approaches,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacologic treatment does not appear to improve treatment outcomes for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional, naturalistic, multicenter European study showed there were no significant differences in response rates between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who received combination treatment with psychotherapy and antidepressant medication in comparison with those who received antidepressant monotherapy, even when comparing different types of psychotherapy.

This “might emphasize the fundamental role of the underlying complex biological interrelationships in MDD and its treatment,” said study investigator Lucie Bartova, MD, PhD, Clinical Division of General Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna.

However, she noted that patients who received psychotherapy in combination with antidepressants also had “beneficial sociodemographic and clinical characteristics,” which might reflect poorer access to “psychotherapeutic techniques for patients who are more severely ill and have less socioeconomic privilege.”

The resulting selection bias may cause patients with more severe illness to “fall by the wayside,” Dr. Bartova said.

Lead researcher Siegfried Kasper, MD, also from the Medical University of Vienna, agreed, saying in a press release that, by implication, “additional psychotherapy tends to be given to more highly educated and healthier patients, which may reflect the greater availability of psychotherapy to more socially and economically advantaged patients.”

The findings, some of which were previously published in the Journal of Psychiatry Research, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Inconsistent guidelines

During her presentation, Dr. Bartova said that while “numerous effective antidepressant strategies are available for the treatment of MDD, many patients do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response,” which often leads to further management refinement and the use of off-label treatments.

She continued, saying that the “most obvious” approach in these situations is to try the available treatment options in a “systematic and individualized” manner, ideally by following recommended treatment algorithms.

Meta-analyses have suggested that standardized psychotherapy with fixed, regular sessions that follows an established rationale and is based on a defined school of thought is effective in MDD, “with at least moderate effects.”

Among the psychotherapy approaches, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the “best and most investigated,” Dr. Bartova said, but international clinical practice guidelines “lack consistency” regarding recommendations for psychotherapy.

To examine the use and impact of psychotherapy for MDD patients, the researchers studied 1,410 adult inpatients and outpatients from 10 centers in eight countries who were surveyed between 2011 and 2016 by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression.

Participants were assessed via the Mini–International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Results showed that among 1,279 MDD patients who were included in the final analysis, 880 (68.8%) received only antidepressants, while 399 (31.2%) received some form of structured psychotherapy as part of their treatment.

These patients included 22.8% who received CBT, 3.4% who underwent psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and 1.3% who received systemic psychotherapy. The additional psychotherapy was not specified for 3.8%.

Dr. Bartova explained that the use of psychotherapy in combination pharmacologic treatment was significantly associated with younger age, higher educational attainment, and ongoing employment in comparison with antidepressant use alone (P < .001 for all).

In addition, combination therapy was associated with an earlier average age of MDD onset, lower severity of current depressive symptoms, a lower risk of suicidality, higher rates of additional melancholic features in the patients’ symptomatology, and higher rates of comorbid asthma and migraine (P < .001 for all).

There was also a significant association between the use of psychotherapy plus pharmacologic treatment and lower average daily doses of first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001), as well as more frequent administration of agomelatine (P < .001) and a trend toward greater use of vortioxetine (P = .006).

In contrast, among patients who received antidepressants alone, there was a trend toward higher rates of additional psychotic features (P = .054), and the patients were more likely to have received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as their first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001).

The researchers found there was no significant difference in rates of response, nonresponse, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) between patients who received combination psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy and those who received antidepressants alone (P = .369).

Dr. Bartova showed that 25.8% of MDD patients who received combination therapy were classified as responders, compared with 23.5% of those given only antidepressants. Nonresponse was identified in 35.6% and 33.8% of patients, respectively, while 38.6% versus 42.7% had TRD.

Dr. Bartova and colleagues performed an additional analysis to determine whether there was any difference in response depending on the type of psychotherapy.

They divided patients who received combination therapy into those who had received CBT and those who had been given another form of psychotherapy.

Again, there were no significant differences in response, nonresponse, and TRD (P = .256). The response rate was 27.1% among patients given combination CBT, versus 22.4% among those who received another psychotherapy.

“Despite clinical guidelines and studies which advocate for psychotherapy and combining psychotherapy with antidepressants, this study shows that in real life, no added value can be demonstrated for psychotherapy in those already treated with antidepressants for severe depression,” Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute, University of Antwerp, Belgium, said in the press release.

“This doesn’t necessarily mean that psychotherapy is not useful, but it is a clear sign that the way we are currently managing these depressed patients with psychotherapy is not effective and needs critical evaluation,” added Dr. De Picker, who was not involved in the research.

However, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the current study “is a secondary analysis of a naturalistic study.”

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

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacologic treatment does not appear to improve treatment outcomes for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional, naturalistic, multicenter European study showed there were no significant differences in response rates between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who received combination treatment with psychotherapy and antidepressant medication in comparison with those who received antidepressant monotherapy, even when comparing different types of psychotherapy.

This “might emphasize the fundamental role of the underlying complex biological interrelationships in MDD and its treatment,” said study investigator Lucie Bartova, MD, PhD, Clinical Division of General Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna.

However, she noted that patients who received psychotherapy in combination with antidepressants also had “beneficial sociodemographic and clinical characteristics,” which might reflect poorer access to “psychotherapeutic techniques for patients who are more severely ill and have less socioeconomic privilege.”

The resulting selection bias may cause patients with more severe illness to “fall by the wayside,” Dr. Bartova said.

Lead researcher Siegfried Kasper, MD, also from the Medical University of Vienna, agreed, saying in a press release that, by implication, “additional psychotherapy tends to be given to more highly educated and healthier patients, which may reflect the greater availability of psychotherapy to more socially and economically advantaged patients.”

The findings, some of which were previously published in the Journal of Psychiatry Research, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Inconsistent guidelines

During her presentation, Dr. Bartova said that while “numerous effective antidepressant strategies are available for the treatment of MDD, many patients do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response,” which often leads to further management refinement and the use of off-label treatments.

She continued, saying that the “most obvious” approach in these situations is to try the available treatment options in a “systematic and individualized” manner, ideally by following recommended treatment algorithms.

Meta-analyses have suggested that standardized psychotherapy with fixed, regular sessions that follows an established rationale and is based on a defined school of thought is effective in MDD, “with at least moderate effects.”

Among the psychotherapy approaches, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the “best and most investigated,” Dr. Bartova said, but international clinical practice guidelines “lack consistency” regarding recommendations for psychotherapy.

To examine the use and impact of psychotherapy for MDD patients, the researchers studied 1,410 adult inpatients and outpatients from 10 centers in eight countries who were surveyed between 2011 and 2016 by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression.

Participants were assessed via the Mini–International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Results showed that among 1,279 MDD patients who were included in the final analysis, 880 (68.8%) received only antidepressants, while 399 (31.2%) received some form of structured psychotherapy as part of their treatment.

These patients included 22.8% who received CBT, 3.4% who underwent psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and 1.3% who received systemic psychotherapy. The additional psychotherapy was not specified for 3.8%.

Dr. Bartova explained that the use of psychotherapy in combination pharmacologic treatment was significantly associated with younger age, higher educational attainment, and ongoing employment in comparison with antidepressant use alone (P < .001 for all).

In addition, combination therapy was associated with an earlier average age of MDD onset, lower severity of current depressive symptoms, a lower risk of suicidality, higher rates of additional melancholic features in the patients’ symptomatology, and higher rates of comorbid asthma and migraine (P < .001 for all).

There was also a significant association between the use of psychotherapy plus pharmacologic treatment and lower average daily doses of first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001), as well as more frequent administration of agomelatine (P < .001) and a trend toward greater use of vortioxetine (P = .006).

In contrast, among patients who received antidepressants alone, there was a trend toward higher rates of additional psychotic features (P = .054), and the patients were more likely to have received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as their first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001).

The researchers found there was no significant difference in rates of response, nonresponse, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) between patients who received combination psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy and those who received antidepressants alone (P = .369).

Dr. Bartova showed that 25.8% of MDD patients who received combination therapy were classified as responders, compared with 23.5% of those given only antidepressants. Nonresponse was identified in 35.6% and 33.8% of patients, respectively, while 38.6% versus 42.7% had TRD.

Dr. Bartova and colleagues performed an additional analysis to determine whether there was any difference in response depending on the type of psychotherapy.

They divided patients who received combination therapy into those who had received CBT and those who had been given another form of psychotherapy.

Again, there were no significant differences in response, nonresponse, and TRD (P = .256). The response rate was 27.1% among patients given combination CBT, versus 22.4% among those who received another psychotherapy.

“Despite clinical guidelines and studies which advocate for psychotherapy and combining psychotherapy with antidepressants, this study shows that in real life, no added value can be demonstrated for psychotherapy in those already treated with antidepressants for severe depression,” Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute, University of Antwerp, Belgium, said in the press release.

“This doesn’t necessarily mean that psychotherapy is not useful, but it is a clear sign that the way we are currently managing these depressed patients with psychotherapy is not effective and needs critical evaluation,” added Dr. De Picker, who was not involved in the research.

However, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the current study “is a secondary analysis of a naturalistic study.”

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

Adding psychotherapy to pharmacologic treatment does not appear to improve treatment outcomes for patients with major depression, new research suggests.

Results of a cross-sectional, naturalistic, multicenter European study showed there were no significant differences in response rates between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who received combination treatment with psychotherapy and antidepressant medication in comparison with those who received antidepressant monotherapy, even when comparing different types of psychotherapy.

This “might emphasize the fundamental role of the underlying complex biological interrelationships in MDD and its treatment,” said study investigator Lucie Bartova, MD, PhD, Clinical Division of General Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna.

However, she noted that patients who received psychotherapy in combination with antidepressants also had “beneficial sociodemographic and clinical characteristics,” which might reflect poorer access to “psychotherapeutic techniques for patients who are more severely ill and have less socioeconomic privilege.”

The resulting selection bias may cause patients with more severe illness to “fall by the wayside,” Dr. Bartova said.

Lead researcher Siegfried Kasper, MD, also from the Medical University of Vienna, agreed, saying in a press release that, by implication, “additional psychotherapy tends to be given to more highly educated and healthier patients, which may reflect the greater availability of psychotherapy to more socially and economically advantaged patients.”

The findings, some of which were previously published in the Journal of Psychiatry Research, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress.
 

Inconsistent guidelines

During her presentation, Dr. Bartova said that while “numerous effective antidepressant strategies are available for the treatment of MDD, many patients do not achieve a satisfactory treatment response,” which often leads to further management refinement and the use of off-label treatments.

She continued, saying that the “most obvious” approach in these situations is to try the available treatment options in a “systematic and individualized” manner, ideally by following recommended treatment algorithms.

Meta-analyses have suggested that standardized psychotherapy with fixed, regular sessions that follows an established rationale and is based on a defined school of thought is effective in MDD, “with at least moderate effects.”

Among the psychotherapy approaches, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is the “best and most investigated,” Dr. Bartova said, but international clinical practice guidelines “lack consistency” regarding recommendations for psychotherapy.

To examine the use and impact of psychotherapy for MDD patients, the researchers studied 1,410 adult inpatients and outpatients from 10 centers in eight countries who were surveyed between 2011 and 2016 by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression.

Participants were assessed via the Mini–International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

Results showed that among 1,279 MDD patients who were included in the final analysis, 880 (68.8%) received only antidepressants, while 399 (31.2%) received some form of structured psychotherapy as part of their treatment.

These patients included 22.8% who received CBT, 3.4% who underwent psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and 1.3% who received systemic psychotherapy. The additional psychotherapy was not specified for 3.8%.

Dr. Bartova explained that the use of psychotherapy in combination pharmacologic treatment was significantly associated with younger age, higher educational attainment, and ongoing employment in comparison with antidepressant use alone (P < .001 for all).

In addition, combination therapy was associated with an earlier average age of MDD onset, lower severity of current depressive symptoms, a lower risk of suicidality, higher rates of additional melancholic features in the patients’ symptomatology, and higher rates of comorbid asthma and migraine (P < .001 for all).

There was also a significant association between the use of psychotherapy plus pharmacologic treatment and lower average daily doses of first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001), as well as more frequent administration of agomelatine (P < .001) and a trend toward greater use of vortioxetine (P = .006).

In contrast, among patients who received antidepressants alone, there was a trend toward higher rates of additional psychotic features (P = .054), and the patients were more likely to have received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as their first-line antidepressant medication (P < .001).

The researchers found there was no significant difference in rates of response, nonresponse, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) between patients who received combination psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy and those who received antidepressants alone (P = .369).

Dr. Bartova showed that 25.8% of MDD patients who received combination therapy were classified as responders, compared with 23.5% of those given only antidepressants. Nonresponse was identified in 35.6% and 33.8% of patients, respectively, while 38.6% versus 42.7% had TRD.

Dr. Bartova and colleagues performed an additional analysis to determine whether there was any difference in response depending on the type of psychotherapy.

They divided patients who received combination therapy into those who had received CBT and those who had been given another form of psychotherapy.

Again, there were no significant differences in response, nonresponse, and TRD (P = .256). The response rate was 27.1% among patients given combination CBT, versus 22.4% among those who received another psychotherapy.

“Despite clinical guidelines and studies which advocate for psychotherapy and combining psychotherapy with antidepressants, this study shows that in real life, no added value can be demonstrated for psychotherapy in those already treated with antidepressants for severe depression,” Livia De Picker, MD, PhD, Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute, University of Antwerp, Belgium, said in the press release.

“This doesn’t necessarily mean that psychotherapy is not useful, but it is a clear sign that the way we are currently managing these depressed patients with psychotherapy is not effective and needs critical evaluation,” added Dr. De Picker, who was not involved in the research.

However, Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the current study “is a secondary analysis of a naturalistic study.”

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

In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.¹ They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.

In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,² there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.

The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.³ A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.

A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.

This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.

A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.

Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”⁴ While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.⁵

A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.

The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.⁶

A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient. Assisting a patient in sorting out and understanding the vast arrays of diagnostic labels they may hear throughout their treatment can serve as a tool for psychoeducation, empowerment, and control over their own care and themselves.

How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,⁷ on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,⁸ we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
 

Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.⁹ Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.

Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.

Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.

Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.

Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.

Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.

Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.

Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.¹⁰ The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.

Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.

2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.

3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.

4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.

5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.

6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.

7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.

8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.

9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.

10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.

In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.¹ They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.

In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,² there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.

The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.³ A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.

A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.

This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.

A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.

Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”⁴ While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.⁵

A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.

The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.⁶

A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient. Assisting a patient in sorting out and understanding the vast arrays of diagnostic labels they may hear throughout their treatment can serve as a tool for psychoeducation, empowerment, and control over their own care and themselves.

How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,⁷ on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,⁸ we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
 

Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.⁹ Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.

Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.

Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.

Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.

Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.

Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.

Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.

Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.¹⁰ The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.

Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.

2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.

3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.

4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.

5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.

6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.

7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.

8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.

9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.

10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.

In 2016, Gupta and Cahill challenged the field of psychiatry to reexamine prescribing patterns.¹ They warned against the use of polypharmacy when not attached to improved patient functioning. They were concerned with the limited evidence for polypharmacy as well as DSM diagnostic criteria. In their inspiring article, they described a process of deprescribing.

In an effort to study and practice their recommendations, we have noticed a lack of literature examining the elimination of diagnostic labels. While there have been some studies looking at comorbidity, especially with substance use disorders,² there is a paucity of scientific evidence on patients with numerous diagnoses. Yet our practices are filled with patients who have been labeled with multiple conflicting or redundant diagnoses throughout their lives depending on the setting or the orientation of the practitioner.

The DSM-5 warns against diagnosing disorders when “the occurrence … is not better explained by” another disorder.³ A mix of diagnoses creates confusion for patients as well as clinicians trying to sort through their reported psychiatric histories.

A routine example would include a patient presenting for an initial evaluation and stating “I’ve been diagnosed as manic-depressive, high anxiety, split personality, posttraumatic stress, insomnia, ADD, and depression.” A review of the medical record will reveal a list of diagnoses, including bipolar II, generalized anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, unspecified insomnia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder. The medication list includes lamotrigine, valproic acid, citalopram, bupropion, buspirone, prazosin, methylphenidate, clonazepam, hydroxyzine, and low-dose quetiapine at night as needed.

This is an example of polypharmacy treating multiple, and at times conflicting, diagnoses. While an extreme case, in our experience, cases like this are not uncommon. It was actually in our efforts to examine deprescribing that we noticed this quandary. When inquiring about patients on many psychotropic medications, we often receive this retort: the patient is only prescribed one medication per disorder. Some providers have the belief that multiple disorders justify multiple medications, and that this tautological thinking legitimizes polypharmacy.

A patient who has varying moods, some fears, a fluctuating temperament, past traumas, occasional difficulty sleeping, intermittent inattention, and some sadness may be given all the diagnoses listed above and the resulting medication list. The multiplication of diagnoses, “polydiagnosing,” is a convenient justification for future polypharmacy. A lack of careful assessment and thinking in the application of new diagnoses permits the use of increasing numbers of pharmacological agents. A constellation of symptoms of anxiety, concentration deficits, affective dysregulation, and psychosis may justify the combination of benzodiazepines, stimulants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics, while a patient with “just” schizophrenia who is sometimes sad, scared, or distracted is more likely to be kept on just one medication, likely an antipsychotic.

Contrary to most medical disorders (for example, tuberculosis) but similar to others (for example, chronic pain), psychiatric disorders are based on the opinion of a “modest number of ‘expert’ classifications.”⁴ While the broad categories of disorders are justifiable, individual diagnoses are burdened with high rates of comorbidity; lack of treatment specificity; and evidence that distinct syndromes share a genetic basis. Those concerns were exemplified in the study examining the inter-rater reliability of DSM-5 diagnoses, where many disorders were found to have questionable validity.⁵

A psychiatric diagnosis should be based on biological, psychological, and social factors, which align with our understanding of the natural course of an illness. A patient presenting with transient symptoms of sadness in the context of significant social factors like homelessness and/or significant biological factors associated with schizophrenia should not reflexively receive an additional diagnosis of a depressive disorder. A patient reporting poor concentration in the context of a manic episode should not receive an additional diagnosis of attention-deficit disorder. An older patient with depression on multiple antipsychotics for adjunctive treatment should not necessarily receive a diagnosis of cognitive disorder at the first sign of memory problems.

The cavalier and inconsistent use of diagnoses renders the patients with no clear narrative of who they are. They end up integrating the varying providers’ opinions as a cacophony of labels of unclear significance. Many patients have contradictory diagnoses like major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Those inaccurate diagnoses could not only lead to treatment mistakes, but also psychological harm.⁶

A clearer diagnostic picture is not only more scientifically sound but also more coherent to the patient. This in turn can lead to an improved treatment alliance and buy-in from the patient. Assisting a patient in sorting out and understanding the vast arrays of diagnostic labels they may hear throughout their treatment can serve as a tool for psychoeducation, empowerment, and control over their own care and themselves.

How should a provider practice de-diagnosing? Based on the work of Reeve, et al.,⁷ on the principles crucial to deprescribing, and subsequent research by Gupta and Cahill,⁸ we compiled a list of considerations for practitioners wishing to engage in this type of work with their patients.
 

Choose the right time. While insurance companies require diagnostic findings from the first visit, abrupt de-diagnosing for the sake of simplifying the record from that first visit could be detrimental. Patients can become attached to and find meaning in their diagnostic labels. This was exemplified with the removal of Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM-5.⁹ Acute symptomatology may be an opportune time to revisit the core pathology of a patient, or a poor time for a patient to have this discussion.

Compile a list of all the patient’s diagnoses. Our initial visits are often illuminated when patients enumerate the vast number of diagnoses they have been given by different providers. Patients will often list half a dozen diagnoses. The patterns often follow life courses with ADHD, conduct disorder, and learning disability in childhood; with anxiety, depression, and/or bipolar disorder in early adulthood; to complicated grief, depression with pseudodementia, and neurocognitive disorders in older adults. Yet patients rarely appreciate the temporary or episodic nature of mental disorders and instead accumulate diagnoses at each change of provider.

Initiate discussion with the patient. It is meaningful to see if patients resonate with the question, “Do you ever feel like every psychiatrist you have seen has given you a different diagnosis?” In our experience, patients’ reactions to this question usually exemplify the problematic nature of the vast array of diagnoses our patients are given. The majority of them are unable to confidently explain the meaning of those diagnoses, the context in which they were given, or their significance. This simple exercise has a powerful effect on raising awareness to patients of the problematic nature of polydiagnosing.

Introduce de-diagnosing. The engagement of patients in the diagnostic process has a significant effect. Reviewing not only diagnostic criteria but also nosology and debates in our understanding of diagnoses can provide patients with further engagement in their care. A simple review of the debate of the bereavement exclusion may permit a patient to not only understand the complexity, but also the changing nature of diagnoses. Suddenly, they are no longer bystanders, but informed participants in their care.

Identify diagnoses most appropriate for removal. Contradictory diagnoses are common in the clinical settings we work in. We routinely see patients carrying multiple mood diagnoses, despite our diagnostic systems not permitting one to have both unipolar and bipolar depression. Superfluous diagnoses are also frequent, with patients receiving depressive, or anxious labels when in an acute state of psychosis or mania. This is exemplified by patients suffering from thought blocking and receiving cognitive or attention-related diagnoses. Concurrent yet different diagnoses are also common in patients with a different list of diagnoses by their primary care provider, their therapist, and their psychiatrist. This is particularly problematic as it forces the patient to alternate their thinking or choose between their providers.

Create a new narrative for the patient. Once diagnoses are explained, clarified, and understood, patients with the help of their providers can reexamine their life story under a new and simplified construct. This process often leads to a less confusing sense of self, an increased dedication to the treatment process, whether behavioral, social, psychological, or pharmacologic.

Consider deprescribing. With a more straightforward and more grounded list of diagnoses (or simply one diagnosis), we find the process of deprescribing to be simpler and more engaging for patients. For example, patients can clearly understand the lack of necessity of an antipsychotic prescription for a resolved substance-induced psychosis. Patients are more engaged in their care, leading to improved medication compliance and less attachment to discontinued medications.

Monitor and adapt. One should of course reevaluate diagnoses as the course of illness provides us with additional information. However, we suggest waiting for a manic episode to emerge prior to diagnosing bipolar rather than suggesting the diagnosis because a patient was wearing red shoes, spoke multiple languages, had multiple degrees and was creative.¹⁰ The contextual basis and progression of the symptoms should lead to continual reassessment of diagnoses.

Physicians are aware of the balance between Occam’s razor, which promotes the simplest single explanation for a problem, versus Hickam’s dictum that reminds us that patients can have as many diseases as they please. However, similarly to polypharmacy, “polydiagnosing” has negative effects. While the field of psychiatry’s advancing knowledge may encourage providers to diagnose their patients with the growing number of diagnoses, patients still need and benefit from a coherent and clear medical narrative. Psychiatry would be wise to recognize this concerning trend, in its attempt at rectifying polypharmacy.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lehman is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. He is codirector of all acute and intensive psychiatric treatment at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Diego, where he practices clinical psychiatry. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Gupta S & Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry. Psychiatr Serv. 2016 Aug 1;67(8):904-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500359.

2. Schuckit MA. Comorbidity between substance use disorders and psychiatric conditions. Addiction. 2006 Sep;101 Suppl 1:76-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01592.x.

3. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association, 2022. https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.

4. Kendler KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med. 2009 Dec;39(12):1935-41. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709005753.

5. Regier DA et al. DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999.

6. Bhattacharya R et al. When good news is bad news: psychological impact of false-positive diagnosis of HIV. AIDS Care. 2008 May;20(5):560-4. doi: 10.1080/09540120701867206.

7. Reeve E et al. Review of deprescribing processes and development of an evidence‐based, patient‐centred deprescribing process. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;78(4):738-47. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12386.

8. Gupta S and Cahill JD. A prescription for “deprescribing” in psychiatry.

9. Solomon M. “On the appearance and disappearance of Asperger’s syndrome” in Kendler and Parnas (eds.) Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry IV: Classification of Psychiatric Illness. Oxford University Press, 2017. doi: 10.1093/med/9780198796022.003.0023.

10. Akiskal HS. Searching for behavioral indicators of bipolar II in patients presenting with major depressive episodes: The “red sign,” the “rule of three,” and other biographic signs of temperamental extravagance, activation, and hypomania. J Affect Disord. 2005 Feb;84(2-3):279-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2004.06.002.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

The novel antidepressant seltorexant (Janssen Pharmaceuticals) may be beneficial for patients with concomitant major depressive disorder (MDD) and sleep disturbance, new research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive dose–finding study conducted in more than 200 patients with MDD, those with more severe insomnia at baseline had a greater improvement in depressive symptoms versus those with less severe insomnia.

“As seltorexant is an orexin receptor antagonist, it is related to other medications that are marketed as sleeping pills, so it was important to show that its antidepressant efficacy was actually caused by improved sleep,” coinvestigator Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

University of Pennsylvania

Clinically meaningful?

In an earlier exploratory study, seltorexant showed antidepressant and sleep-promoting effects in patients with MDD. In a phase 2b study, a 20-mg dose of the drug showed clinically meaningful improvement in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score after 6 weeks of treatment.

In the current analysis, the investigators evaluated the effect of seltorexant in improving depressive symptoms beyond sleep-related improvement in patients with MDD, using the MADRS-WOSI (MADRS without the sleep item).

They also used the six-item core MADRS subscale, which excludes sleep, anxiety, and appetite items.

The 283 participants were randomly assigned 3:3:1 to receive seltorexant 10 mg or 20 mg or placebo once daily. They were also stratified into two groups according to the severity of their insomnia: those with a baseline Insomnia Severity Index [ISI] score of 15 or higher (58%) and those with a baseline ISI score of less than 15 (42%).

Results showed that the group receiving the 20-mg/day dose of seltorexant (n = 61 patients) obtained a statistically and clinically meaningful response, compared with the placebo group (n = 137 patients) after removing the insomnia and other “not core items” of the MADRS. The effect was clearest among those with high insomnia ratings.

Improvement in the MADRS-WOSI score was also observed in the seltorexant 20-mg group at week 3 and week 6, compared with the placebo group.
 

The LSM average distance

The least squares mean (LSM) average difference between the treatment and placebo groups in the MADRS-WOSI score at week 3 was −3.8 (90% confidence interval, −5.98 to −1.57; P = .005).

At week 6, the LSM between the groups in the MADRS-WOSI score was −2.5 (90% CI, −5.24 to 0.15; P = .12).

The results were consistent with improvement in the MADRS total score. At week 3, the LSM in the MADRS total score was -4.5 (90% CI, -6.96 to -2.07; P = .003) and, at week 6, it was -3.1 (90% CI, -6.13 to -0.16; P = .083).

Seltorexant 20 mg was especially effective in patients who had more severe insomnia.

Commenting on the study, Nagy Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said this was “a well-designed study examining a promising compound.”

Ohio State University

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

The novel antidepressant seltorexant (Janssen Pharmaceuticals) may be beneficial for patients with concomitant major depressive disorder (MDD) and sleep disturbance, new research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive dose–finding study conducted in more than 200 patients with MDD, those with more severe insomnia at baseline had a greater improvement in depressive symptoms versus those with less severe insomnia.

“As seltorexant is an orexin receptor antagonist, it is related to other medications that are marketed as sleeping pills, so it was important to show that its antidepressant efficacy was actually caused by improved sleep,” coinvestigator Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

University of Pennsylvania

Clinically meaningful?

In an earlier exploratory study, seltorexant showed antidepressant and sleep-promoting effects in patients with MDD. In a phase 2b study, a 20-mg dose of the drug showed clinically meaningful improvement in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score after 6 weeks of treatment.

In the current analysis, the investigators evaluated the effect of seltorexant in improving depressive symptoms beyond sleep-related improvement in patients with MDD, using the MADRS-WOSI (MADRS without the sleep item).

They also used the six-item core MADRS subscale, which excludes sleep, anxiety, and appetite items.

The 283 participants were randomly assigned 3:3:1 to receive seltorexant 10 mg or 20 mg or placebo once daily. They were also stratified into two groups according to the severity of their insomnia: those with a baseline Insomnia Severity Index [ISI] score of 15 or higher (58%) and those with a baseline ISI score of less than 15 (42%).

Results showed that the group receiving the 20-mg/day dose of seltorexant (n = 61 patients) obtained a statistically and clinically meaningful response, compared with the placebo group (n = 137 patients) after removing the insomnia and other “not core items” of the MADRS. The effect was clearest among those with high insomnia ratings.

Improvement in the MADRS-WOSI score was also observed in the seltorexant 20-mg group at week 3 and week 6, compared with the placebo group.
 

The LSM average distance

The least squares mean (LSM) average difference between the treatment and placebo groups in the MADRS-WOSI score at week 3 was −3.8 (90% confidence interval, −5.98 to −1.57; P = .005).

At week 6, the LSM between the groups in the MADRS-WOSI score was −2.5 (90% CI, −5.24 to 0.15; P = .12).

The results were consistent with improvement in the MADRS total score. At week 3, the LSM in the MADRS total score was -4.5 (90% CI, -6.96 to -2.07; P = .003) and, at week 6, it was -3.1 (90% CI, -6.13 to -0.16; P = .083).

Seltorexant 20 mg was especially effective in patients who had more severe insomnia.

Commenting on the study, Nagy Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said this was “a well-designed study examining a promising compound.”

Ohio State University

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

The novel antidepressant seltorexant (Janssen Pharmaceuticals) may be beneficial for patients with concomitant major depressive disorder (MDD) and sleep disturbance, new research suggests.

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive dose–finding study conducted in more than 200 patients with MDD, those with more severe insomnia at baseline had a greater improvement in depressive symptoms versus those with less severe insomnia.

“As seltorexant is an orexin receptor antagonist, it is related to other medications that are marketed as sleeping pills, so it was important to show that its antidepressant efficacy was actually caused by improved sleep,” coinvestigator Michael E. Thase, MD, professor of psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

University of Pennsylvania

Clinically meaningful?

In an earlier exploratory study, seltorexant showed antidepressant and sleep-promoting effects in patients with MDD. In a phase 2b study, a 20-mg dose of the drug showed clinically meaningful improvement in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score after 6 weeks of treatment.

In the current analysis, the investigators evaluated the effect of seltorexant in improving depressive symptoms beyond sleep-related improvement in patients with MDD, using the MADRS-WOSI (MADRS without the sleep item).

They also used the six-item core MADRS subscale, which excludes sleep, anxiety, and appetite items.

The 283 participants were randomly assigned 3:3:1 to receive seltorexant 10 mg or 20 mg or placebo once daily. They were also stratified into two groups according to the severity of their insomnia: those with a baseline Insomnia Severity Index [ISI] score of 15 or higher (58%) and those with a baseline ISI score of less than 15 (42%).

Results showed that the group receiving the 20-mg/day dose of seltorexant (n = 61 patients) obtained a statistically and clinically meaningful response, compared with the placebo group (n = 137 patients) after removing the insomnia and other “not core items” of the MADRS. The effect was clearest among those with high insomnia ratings.

Improvement in the MADRS-WOSI score was also observed in the seltorexant 20-mg group at week 3 and week 6, compared with the placebo group.
 

The LSM average distance

The least squares mean (LSM) average difference between the treatment and placebo groups in the MADRS-WOSI score at week 3 was −3.8 (90% confidence interval, −5.98 to −1.57; P = .005).

At week 6, the LSM between the groups in the MADRS-WOSI score was −2.5 (90% CI, −5.24 to 0.15; P = .12).

The results were consistent with improvement in the MADRS total score. At week 3, the LSM in the MADRS total score was -4.5 (90% CI, -6.96 to -2.07; P = .003) and, at week 6, it was -3.1 (90% CI, -6.13 to -0.16; P = .083).

Seltorexant 20 mg was especially effective in patients who had more severe insomnia.

Commenting on the study, Nagy Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said this was “a well-designed study examining a promising compound.”

Ohio State University

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.