User login
Add-on psychotherapy a win in bipolar disorder
Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.
Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.
The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Drugs alone not enough
It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).
The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).
Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).
Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).
Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.
For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.
The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.
“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.
and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.
“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
A call to action
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”
The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.
The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”
The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.
Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.
The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Drugs alone not enough
It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).
The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).
Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).
Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).
Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.
For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.
The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.
“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.
and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.
“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
A call to action
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”
The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.
The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”
The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy benefits patients with bipolar disorder (BD), particularly when delivered in family or group settings, results of a new meta-analysis confirms.
Outpatients with BD receiving drug therapy “should also be offered psychosocial treatments that emphasize illness management strategies and enhance coping skills; delivering these components in family or group format may be especially advantageous,” wrote the investigators, led by David Miklowitz, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.
The study was published online Oct. 14 in JAMA Psychiatry.
Drugs alone not enough
It’s increasingly recognized that drug therapy alone can’t prevent recurrences of BD or fully alleviate postepisode symptoms or functional impairment, the researchers noted in their article. Several psychotherapy protocols have been shown to benefit patients with BD when used in conjunction with drug therapy, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic review and component network meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials (36 involving adults and three involving adolescents).
The trials involved 3,863 patients with BD and compared pharmacotherapy used in conjunction with manualized psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], family or conjoint therapy, interpersonal therapy, and/or psychoeducational therapy) with pharmacotherapy delivered in conjunction with a control intervention (supportive therapy or treatment as usual).
Across 20 two-group trials that provided usable information, manualized psychotherapies were associated with a lower probability of illness recurrence (the primary outcome), compared with control interventions (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43-0.74).
Psychoeducation with guided practice of illness management skills in a family or group format was superior to these strategies delivered in an individual format (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94).
Family or conjoint therapy and brief psychoeducation were associated with lower attrition rates than standard psychoeducation.
For the secondary outcome of stabilization of depressive or manic symptoms over 12 months, CBT and, with less certainty, family or conjoint therapy and interpersonal therapy were more effective than treatment as usual.
The investigators note that the findings are in line with a network meta-analysis published earlier this year that found that combining psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy is the best option for stabilizing episodes and preventing recurrences of major depression.
“[T]here is enough evidence from this analysis and others to conclude that health care systems should offer combinations of evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy” to outpatients with BD, the researchers note.
and active tasks to enhance coping skills (e.g., monitoring and managing prodromal symptoms) rather than being passive recipients of didactic education,” they wrote.
“When the immediate goal is recovery from moderately severe depressive or manic symptoms, cognitive restructuring, regulating daily rhythms, and communication training may be associated with stabilization,” they added.
A call to action
The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry noted that the findings “further reinforce extant treatment guidelines recommending medication management and adjunctive evidence-based psychosocial treatments for individuals with BD.”
The findings also “identify specific treatment components and formats most strongly associated with preventing relapse and addressing mood symptoms,” write Tina Goldstein, PhD, and Danella Hafeman, MD, PhD, from Western Psychiatric Hospital, University of Pittsburgh.
The study “may further serve as a call to action to enhance availability and uptake of these treatments in the community. Unfortunately, data suggest substantially lower rates of psychotherapy receipt (26%-50%), compared with medication management (46%-90%) among adults with BD,” they wrote.
Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Hafeman noted future steps for the field include “demonstrating effectiveness of evidence-based treatment approaches for BD in the community, maximizing accessibility, and furthering knowledge that informs individualized treatment selection with substantial promise to optimize outcomes for individuals with BD.”
The study was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Miklowitz has received research support from the NIHR, the Danny Alberts Foundation, the Attias Family Foundation, the Carl and Roberta Deutsch Foundation, the Kayne Family Foundation, AIM for Mental Health, and the Max Gray Fund; book royalties from Guilford Press and John Wiley and Sons; and served as principal investigator on four of the trials included in this meta-analysis. Dr. Goldstein has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and royalties from Guilford Press outside the submitted work. Dr. Hafeman has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, and the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
National three-digit suicide lifeline to take effect in 2022
Beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
The number was finalized when President Donald J. Trump signed the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act on Oct. 17. It completes what has been a multiyear effort by Republican and Democratic lawmakers to make it easier for individuals to reach out during mental health emergencies.
“When your house is on fire, you can get help by calling 9-1-1,” noted Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a key sponsor of the legislation, in a statement. The new number “is a national step forward out of the shadows of stigma that prevent too many people from getting help and into a new era when mental health care is easy to get and normal to talk about,” said Rep. Moulton, a combat veteran who has openly discussed his struggles with PTSD.
The law requires the Department of Health & Human Services to develop a strategy to provide access to specialized services for high-risk populations such as LGBTQ youth, minorities, and people who live in rural areas.
“This law is a historic victory, as this is the first explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive bill to pass unanimously in history – and 9-8-8 will undoubtedly save countless lives,” said Sam Brinton, vice president of advocacy and government affairs for the Trevor Project, in a statement, also noting that “More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth having seriously considered it.”
Robert Gebbia, CEO of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said in a statement: “This easy-to-remember number will increase public access to mental health and suicide prevention crisis resources, encourage help-seeking for individuals in need, and is a crucial entry point for establishing a continuum of crisis care.”
Mr. Gabbia called for more funding for local crisis centers to “respond to what we expect will be an increased call volume and provide effective crisis services to those in need when 9-8-8 is made available in July 2022.”
In 2017, then-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and colleague Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) pushed for a three-digit number for people having mental health crises. Their legislation passed in the Senate that fall and passed in the House in July 2018.
The bill directed the Federal Communications Commission to submit a report to Congress that would include a recommended number, a cost-benefit analysis comparing the three-digit code with the current hotline, and an assessment of how much it might cost service providers, states, local towns, and cities.
Mr. Trump signed that bill in 2018. The FCC unanimously approved the 9-8-8 number in July 2020.
Until the new number is active in July 2022, those in crisis should continue to call the National Suicide Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
The number was finalized when President Donald J. Trump signed the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act on Oct. 17. It completes what has been a multiyear effort by Republican and Democratic lawmakers to make it easier for individuals to reach out during mental health emergencies.
“When your house is on fire, you can get help by calling 9-1-1,” noted Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a key sponsor of the legislation, in a statement. The new number “is a national step forward out of the shadows of stigma that prevent too many people from getting help and into a new era when mental health care is easy to get and normal to talk about,” said Rep. Moulton, a combat veteran who has openly discussed his struggles with PTSD.
The law requires the Department of Health & Human Services to develop a strategy to provide access to specialized services for high-risk populations such as LGBTQ youth, minorities, and people who live in rural areas.
“This law is a historic victory, as this is the first explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive bill to pass unanimously in history – and 9-8-8 will undoubtedly save countless lives,” said Sam Brinton, vice president of advocacy and government affairs for the Trevor Project, in a statement, also noting that “More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth having seriously considered it.”
Robert Gebbia, CEO of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said in a statement: “This easy-to-remember number will increase public access to mental health and suicide prevention crisis resources, encourage help-seeking for individuals in need, and is a crucial entry point for establishing a continuum of crisis care.”
Mr. Gabbia called for more funding for local crisis centers to “respond to what we expect will be an increased call volume and provide effective crisis services to those in need when 9-8-8 is made available in July 2022.”
In 2017, then-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and colleague Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) pushed for a three-digit number for people having mental health crises. Their legislation passed in the Senate that fall and passed in the House in July 2018.
The bill directed the Federal Communications Commission to submit a report to Congress that would include a recommended number, a cost-benefit analysis comparing the three-digit code with the current hotline, and an assessment of how much it might cost service providers, states, local towns, and cities.
Mr. Trump signed that bill in 2018. The FCC unanimously approved the 9-8-8 number in July 2020.
Until the new number is active in July 2022, those in crisis should continue to call the National Suicide Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Beginning in July 2022, Americans experiencing a mental health crisis will be able to dial 9-8-8 and be connected to the services and counselors at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
The number was finalized when President Donald J. Trump signed the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act on Oct. 17. It completes what has been a multiyear effort by Republican and Democratic lawmakers to make it easier for individuals to reach out during mental health emergencies.
“When your house is on fire, you can get help by calling 9-1-1,” noted Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a key sponsor of the legislation, in a statement. The new number “is a national step forward out of the shadows of stigma that prevent too many people from getting help and into a new era when mental health care is easy to get and normal to talk about,” said Rep. Moulton, a combat veteran who has openly discussed his struggles with PTSD.
The law requires the Department of Health & Human Services to develop a strategy to provide access to specialized services for high-risk populations such as LGBTQ youth, minorities, and people who live in rural areas.
“This law is a historic victory, as this is the first explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive bill to pass unanimously in history – and 9-8-8 will undoubtedly save countless lives,” said Sam Brinton, vice president of advocacy and government affairs for the Trevor Project, in a statement, also noting that “More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth having seriously considered it.”
Robert Gebbia, CEO of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said in a statement: “This easy-to-remember number will increase public access to mental health and suicide prevention crisis resources, encourage help-seeking for individuals in need, and is a crucial entry point for establishing a continuum of crisis care.”
Mr. Gabbia called for more funding for local crisis centers to “respond to what we expect will be an increased call volume and provide effective crisis services to those in need when 9-8-8 is made available in July 2022.”
In 2017, then-Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and colleague Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) pushed for a three-digit number for people having mental health crises. Their legislation passed in the Senate that fall and passed in the House in July 2018.
The bill directed the Federal Communications Commission to submit a report to Congress that would include a recommended number, a cost-benefit analysis comparing the three-digit code with the current hotline, and an assessment of how much it might cost service providers, states, local towns, and cities.
Mr. Trump signed that bill in 2018. The FCC unanimously approved the 9-8-8 number in July 2020.
Until the new number is active in July 2022, those in crisis should continue to call the National Suicide Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Melancholic, psychotic depression may protect against ECT cognitive effects
Patients with severe melancholic or psychotic depression are more likely to respond to ECT, and preliminary evidence indicates they’re also protected against ECT-induced cognitive impairment, Linda van Diermen, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Over the decades many small, underpowered studies have looked at possible predictors of ECT response and remission, with no consensus being reached. In an effort to bring a measure of clarity, Dr. van Diermen and her coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of 34 published studies in accord with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) guidelines and published their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry. They scrutinized three potential predictors of response: the presence of psychotic features, melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms, and older age.
Psychotic depression was associated with a 1.7-fold increased likelihood of response to ECT and a 1.5-fold increased odds of remission, compared with that of ECT-treated patients without psychotic depression. Older age was also a statistically significant predictor of response. However, the findings on melancholic depression were inconclusive, with only five studies with inconsistent results being available, said Dr. van Diermen, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).
She was quick to point out that, although psychotic depression and older age were statistically significant predictors of heightened likelihood of ECT response, they are of only limited clinical significance in treatment decision-making. The ECT response rate was 79% in patients with psychotic depression but still quite good at 71% in those without psychotic depression. Moreover, the average age of remitters was 59.7 years, compared with 55.4 years in nonresponders, a difference too small to be useful in guiding clinical treatment decisions.
“Although we did a meta-analysis in more than 3,200 patients that confirmed the superior effects of ECT in older patients and we recommended it at that time as one of the elements to guide decision-making when you consider ECT, our present, more detailed look at the interdependence of the predictors leads us to reconsider this statement. We now venture that age has been given too much weight in the past decades.”
A closer look at ECT response predictors
The studies included in the meta-analysis assessed psychotic depression and melancholic features as ECT response predictors in the typical binary way employed in clinical practice: yes/no, either present or absent. Dr. van Diermer hypothesized that a more in-depth assessment of the severity of those factors would boost their predictive power.
She found that this was indeed the case for melancholic depression as evaluated by three tools for measuring psychomotor symptoms, a core feature of this form of depression. She and her coinvestigators assessed psychomotor functioning in 65 adults with major depressive disorder before, during, and after ECT using the clinician-rated CORE scale, which measures psychomotor retardation, agitation, and noninteractiveness. In addition, the investigators had the subjects wear an accelerometer and complete a timed fine-motor drawing test.
The 41 patients with melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms as defined by a CORE score of 8 or more were 4.9-fold more likely to reach an ECT response than were those with nonmelancholic depression. A lower baseline daytime activity level as assessed by accelerometer was also a significant predictor of increased likelihood of response, as were slower times on the drawing test.
In contrast, the investigators found that more detailed assessment of psychotic depression using the validated Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) was predictive of the likelihood of ECT response, but not any more so than the simple presence or absence of psychotic symptoms (J ECT. 2019 Dec;35[4]:238-44).
“In our sample, better measurement of psychotic symptoms did not improve prediction, but better measurement of psychomotor symptoms did seem to be valuable,” according to the psychiatrist.
Protection against ECT’s cognitive side effects?
Dr. van Diermen and colleagues assessed short- and long-term changes in global cognitive functioning in 65 consecutive patients treated with ECT for a major depressive episode by administering the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline, before the third ECT session, and 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months after completing their treatment course.
During ECT, the investigators documented a limited decrease in cognitive functioning at the group level, which rebounded during the 6 months after ECT. But although there was no significant difference between MoCA scores at baseline and 6 months follow-up after ECT in the overall group of study participants, that doesn’t tell the full story. Six months after completing their course of ECT, 18% of patients demonstrated improved cognitive functioning, compared with baseline, but 8% had significantly worse cognitive functioning than pretreatment.
“Saying that ECT has no cognitive effects seems to be somewhat wrong to me. It has cognitive effects for certain people, and it will be interesting to know which people,” Dr. van Diermen said.
In what she termed “a very, very preliminary analysis,” she found that the patients with psychotic or melancholic depression were markedly less likely to have long-term cognitive impairment as defined by a worse MoCA score, compared with baseline, both at 6 months and one or more intermediate time points. Only 1 of 31 patients with psychotic depression fell into that poor cognitive outcome category, as did 4 patients with melancholic depression, compared with 12 patients without psychotic depression and 9 without melancholic depression. This, Dr. van Diermen believes, is the first report of an apparent protective effect of melancholic or psychotic depression against ECT-induced long-term cognitive worsening.
“Replication of our results is definitely necessary in larger patient samples,” she cautioned.
Dr. van Diermen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
SOURCE: van Diermen L. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.
Patients with severe melancholic or psychotic depression are more likely to respond to ECT, and preliminary evidence indicates they’re also protected against ECT-induced cognitive impairment, Linda van Diermen, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Over the decades many small, underpowered studies have looked at possible predictors of ECT response and remission, with no consensus being reached. In an effort to bring a measure of clarity, Dr. van Diermen and her coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of 34 published studies in accord with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) guidelines and published their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry. They scrutinized three potential predictors of response: the presence of psychotic features, melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms, and older age.
Psychotic depression was associated with a 1.7-fold increased likelihood of response to ECT and a 1.5-fold increased odds of remission, compared with that of ECT-treated patients without psychotic depression. Older age was also a statistically significant predictor of response. However, the findings on melancholic depression were inconclusive, with only five studies with inconsistent results being available, said Dr. van Diermen, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).
She was quick to point out that, although psychotic depression and older age were statistically significant predictors of heightened likelihood of ECT response, they are of only limited clinical significance in treatment decision-making. The ECT response rate was 79% in patients with psychotic depression but still quite good at 71% in those without psychotic depression. Moreover, the average age of remitters was 59.7 years, compared with 55.4 years in nonresponders, a difference too small to be useful in guiding clinical treatment decisions.
“Although we did a meta-analysis in more than 3,200 patients that confirmed the superior effects of ECT in older patients and we recommended it at that time as one of the elements to guide decision-making when you consider ECT, our present, more detailed look at the interdependence of the predictors leads us to reconsider this statement. We now venture that age has been given too much weight in the past decades.”
A closer look at ECT response predictors
The studies included in the meta-analysis assessed psychotic depression and melancholic features as ECT response predictors in the typical binary way employed in clinical practice: yes/no, either present or absent. Dr. van Diermer hypothesized that a more in-depth assessment of the severity of those factors would boost their predictive power.
She found that this was indeed the case for melancholic depression as evaluated by three tools for measuring psychomotor symptoms, a core feature of this form of depression. She and her coinvestigators assessed psychomotor functioning in 65 adults with major depressive disorder before, during, and after ECT using the clinician-rated CORE scale, which measures psychomotor retardation, agitation, and noninteractiveness. In addition, the investigators had the subjects wear an accelerometer and complete a timed fine-motor drawing test.
The 41 patients with melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms as defined by a CORE score of 8 or more were 4.9-fold more likely to reach an ECT response than were those with nonmelancholic depression. A lower baseline daytime activity level as assessed by accelerometer was also a significant predictor of increased likelihood of response, as were slower times on the drawing test.
In contrast, the investigators found that more detailed assessment of psychotic depression using the validated Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) was predictive of the likelihood of ECT response, but not any more so than the simple presence or absence of psychotic symptoms (J ECT. 2019 Dec;35[4]:238-44).
“In our sample, better measurement of psychotic symptoms did not improve prediction, but better measurement of psychomotor symptoms did seem to be valuable,” according to the psychiatrist.
Protection against ECT’s cognitive side effects?
Dr. van Diermen and colleagues assessed short- and long-term changes in global cognitive functioning in 65 consecutive patients treated with ECT for a major depressive episode by administering the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline, before the third ECT session, and 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months after completing their treatment course.
During ECT, the investigators documented a limited decrease in cognitive functioning at the group level, which rebounded during the 6 months after ECT. But although there was no significant difference between MoCA scores at baseline and 6 months follow-up after ECT in the overall group of study participants, that doesn’t tell the full story. Six months after completing their course of ECT, 18% of patients demonstrated improved cognitive functioning, compared with baseline, but 8% had significantly worse cognitive functioning than pretreatment.
“Saying that ECT has no cognitive effects seems to be somewhat wrong to me. It has cognitive effects for certain people, and it will be interesting to know which people,” Dr. van Diermen said.
In what she termed “a very, very preliminary analysis,” she found that the patients with psychotic or melancholic depression were markedly less likely to have long-term cognitive impairment as defined by a worse MoCA score, compared with baseline, both at 6 months and one or more intermediate time points. Only 1 of 31 patients with psychotic depression fell into that poor cognitive outcome category, as did 4 patients with melancholic depression, compared with 12 patients without psychotic depression and 9 without melancholic depression. This, Dr. van Diermen believes, is the first report of an apparent protective effect of melancholic or psychotic depression against ECT-induced long-term cognitive worsening.
“Replication of our results is definitely necessary in larger patient samples,” she cautioned.
Dr. van Diermen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
SOURCE: van Diermen L. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.
Patients with severe melancholic or psychotic depression are more likely to respond to ECT, and preliminary evidence indicates they’re also protected against ECT-induced cognitive impairment, Linda van Diermen, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Over the decades many small, underpowered studies have looked at possible predictors of ECT response and remission, with no consensus being reached. In an effort to bring a measure of clarity, Dr. van Diermen and her coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of 34 published studies in accord with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) guidelines and published their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry. They scrutinized three potential predictors of response: the presence of psychotic features, melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms, and older age.
Psychotic depression was associated with a 1.7-fold increased likelihood of response to ECT and a 1.5-fold increased odds of remission, compared with that of ECT-treated patients without psychotic depression. Older age was also a statistically significant predictor of response. However, the findings on melancholic depression were inconclusive, with only five studies with inconsistent results being available, said Dr. van Diermen, a psychiatrist at the University of Antwerp (Belgium).
She was quick to point out that, although psychotic depression and older age were statistically significant predictors of heightened likelihood of ECT response, they are of only limited clinical significance in treatment decision-making. The ECT response rate was 79% in patients with psychotic depression but still quite good at 71% in those without psychotic depression. Moreover, the average age of remitters was 59.7 years, compared with 55.4 years in nonresponders, a difference too small to be useful in guiding clinical treatment decisions.
“Although we did a meta-analysis in more than 3,200 patients that confirmed the superior effects of ECT in older patients and we recommended it at that time as one of the elements to guide decision-making when you consider ECT, our present, more detailed look at the interdependence of the predictors leads us to reconsider this statement. We now venture that age has been given too much weight in the past decades.”
A closer look at ECT response predictors
The studies included in the meta-analysis assessed psychotic depression and melancholic features as ECT response predictors in the typical binary way employed in clinical practice: yes/no, either present or absent. Dr. van Diermer hypothesized that a more in-depth assessment of the severity of those factors would boost their predictive power.
She found that this was indeed the case for melancholic depression as evaluated by three tools for measuring psychomotor symptoms, a core feature of this form of depression. She and her coinvestigators assessed psychomotor functioning in 65 adults with major depressive disorder before, during, and after ECT using the clinician-rated CORE scale, which measures psychomotor retardation, agitation, and noninteractiveness. In addition, the investigators had the subjects wear an accelerometer and complete a timed fine-motor drawing test.
The 41 patients with melancholic depression with psychomotor symptoms as defined by a CORE score of 8 or more were 4.9-fold more likely to reach an ECT response than were those with nonmelancholic depression. A lower baseline daytime activity level as assessed by accelerometer was also a significant predictor of increased likelihood of response, as were slower times on the drawing test.
In contrast, the investigators found that more detailed assessment of psychotic depression using the validated Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS) was predictive of the likelihood of ECT response, but not any more so than the simple presence or absence of psychotic symptoms (J ECT. 2019 Dec;35[4]:238-44).
“In our sample, better measurement of psychotic symptoms did not improve prediction, but better measurement of psychomotor symptoms did seem to be valuable,” according to the psychiatrist.
Protection against ECT’s cognitive side effects?
Dr. van Diermen and colleagues assessed short- and long-term changes in global cognitive functioning in 65 consecutive patients treated with ECT for a major depressive episode by administering the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline, before the third ECT session, and 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months after completing their treatment course.
During ECT, the investigators documented a limited decrease in cognitive functioning at the group level, which rebounded during the 6 months after ECT. But although there was no significant difference between MoCA scores at baseline and 6 months follow-up after ECT in the overall group of study participants, that doesn’t tell the full story. Six months after completing their course of ECT, 18% of patients demonstrated improved cognitive functioning, compared with baseline, but 8% had significantly worse cognitive functioning than pretreatment.
“Saying that ECT has no cognitive effects seems to be somewhat wrong to me. It has cognitive effects for certain people, and it will be interesting to know which people,” Dr. van Diermen said.
In what she termed “a very, very preliminary analysis,” she found that the patients with psychotic or melancholic depression were markedly less likely to have long-term cognitive impairment as defined by a worse MoCA score, compared with baseline, both at 6 months and one or more intermediate time points. Only 1 of 31 patients with psychotic depression fell into that poor cognitive outcome category, as did 4 patients with melancholic depression, compared with 12 patients without psychotic depression and 9 without melancholic depression. This, Dr. van Diermen believes, is the first report of an apparent protective effect of melancholic or psychotic depression against ECT-induced long-term cognitive worsening.
“Replication of our results is definitely necessary in larger patient samples,” she cautioned.
Dr. van Diermen reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
SOURCE: van Diermen L. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.
FROM ECNP 2020
Include irritability in ADHD suicidality risk assessments
Irritability appears to be a potent independent predictor of increased risk for suicidality in children and adolescents with ADHD, Tomer Levy, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
While there is ample evidence that ADHD is associated with increased suicidality, Dr. Levy’s recent study involving 1,516 youths aged 6-17 years attending an outpatient ADHD clinic demonstrated that this increased risk is mediated by depression and irritability in roughly equal measures. Moreover, upon controlling for those two factors in a multivariate analysis, ADHD symptoms, per se, had no direct effect on risk of suicidality as defined by suidical ideation, attempts, or self-harm.
The clinical take-home message is that assessing irritability, as well as depression, may bolster an estimate of suicidality and help in managing suicidal risk in ADHD, according to Dr. Levy, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and head of behavioral regulation services at the Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel.
The study included separate parent- and teacher-structured reports of the youths’ ADHD symptoms, suicidality, depression, irritability, and anxiety.
In multivariate analyses, parent-reported depression accounted for 39.1% of the association between ADHD symptoms and suicidality, while irritability symptoms mediated 36.8% of the total effect. In the teachers’ reports, depression and irritability symptoms accounted for 45.3% and 38.4% of the association. Anxiety symptoms mediated 19% of the relationship between ADHD and suicidality by parental report but had no significant impact on the association according to teacher report in the recently published study.
Dr. Levy noted that, in the DSM-5, irritability cuts across diagnostic categories. It is not only a core dimension of ADHD, but of the other externalizing disorders – conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder – as well, and also of neurodevelopmental, internalizing, and stress-related disorders.
Interventional studies aimed at dampening irritability as a potential strategy to reduce suicidality haven’t yet been done, but they deserve research priority status, in Dr. Levy’s view. Numerous functional dimensions that influence irritability are potential targets, including aggression, negative affect, low tolerance of frustration, skewed threat perception, and impaired self-regulation, according to the psychiatrist.
Most suicidal youths are attempting to cope with mental disorders. The most prevalent of these are major depressive disorder and dysthymia, followed by externalizing disorders. And among the externalizing disorders, conduct disorder stands out in terms of the magnitude of associated suicidality risk. In a large Taiwanese national study including 3,711 adolescents with conduct disorder and 14,844 age- and sex-matched controls, conduct disorder was associated with an adjusted 5.17-fold increased risk of subsequent suicide attempts over the next 10 years in a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for other psychiatric comorbidities and demographics.
In addition to depression, irritability symptoms, and conduct problems, other risk factors that should be part of a suicidality assessment in children and adolescents with ADHD include substance use, anxiety, poor family support, and bullying and/or being bullied. But, perhaps surprisingly, not impulsivity, Dr. Levy said.
“There is a widely held perception that impulsivity imparts a risk for suicidality, and especially in the transition from ideation to attempt. However, more recent evidence fails to show a convincing association,” according to Dr. Levy.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Levy T. ECNP 2020, Session EDU.02.
Irritability appears to be a potent independent predictor of increased risk for suicidality in children and adolescents with ADHD, Tomer Levy, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
While there is ample evidence that ADHD is associated with increased suicidality, Dr. Levy’s recent study involving 1,516 youths aged 6-17 years attending an outpatient ADHD clinic demonstrated that this increased risk is mediated by depression and irritability in roughly equal measures. Moreover, upon controlling for those two factors in a multivariate analysis, ADHD symptoms, per se, had no direct effect on risk of suicidality as defined by suidical ideation, attempts, or self-harm.
The clinical take-home message is that assessing irritability, as well as depression, may bolster an estimate of suicidality and help in managing suicidal risk in ADHD, according to Dr. Levy, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and head of behavioral regulation services at the Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel.
The study included separate parent- and teacher-structured reports of the youths’ ADHD symptoms, suicidality, depression, irritability, and anxiety.
In multivariate analyses, parent-reported depression accounted for 39.1% of the association between ADHD symptoms and suicidality, while irritability symptoms mediated 36.8% of the total effect. In the teachers’ reports, depression and irritability symptoms accounted for 45.3% and 38.4% of the association. Anxiety symptoms mediated 19% of the relationship between ADHD and suicidality by parental report but had no significant impact on the association according to teacher report in the recently published study.
Dr. Levy noted that, in the DSM-5, irritability cuts across diagnostic categories. It is not only a core dimension of ADHD, but of the other externalizing disorders – conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder – as well, and also of neurodevelopmental, internalizing, and stress-related disorders.
Interventional studies aimed at dampening irritability as a potential strategy to reduce suicidality haven’t yet been done, but they deserve research priority status, in Dr. Levy’s view. Numerous functional dimensions that influence irritability are potential targets, including aggression, negative affect, low tolerance of frustration, skewed threat perception, and impaired self-regulation, according to the psychiatrist.
Most suicidal youths are attempting to cope with mental disorders. The most prevalent of these are major depressive disorder and dysthymia, followed by externalizing disorders. And among the externalizing disorders, conduct disorder stands out in terms of the magnitude of associated suicidality risk. In a large Taiwanese national study including 3,711 adolescents with conduct disorder and 14,844 age- and sex-matched controls, conduct disorder was associated with an adjusted 5.17-fold increased risk of subsequent suicide attempts over the next 10 years in a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for other psychiatric comorbidities and demographics.
In addition to depression, irritability symptoms, and conduct problems, other risk factors that should be part of a suicidality assessment in children and adolescents with ADHD include substance use, anxiety, poor family support, and bullying and/or being bullied. But, perhaps surprisingly, not impulsivity, Dr. Levy said.
“There is a widely held perception that impulsivity imparts a risk for suicidality, and especially in the transition from ideation to attempt. However, more recent evidence fails to show a convincing association,” according to Dr. Levy.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Levy T. ECNP 2020, Session EDU.02.
Irritability appears to be a potent independent predictor of increased risk for suicidality in children and adolescents with ADHD, Tomer Levy, MD, said at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
While there is ample evidence that ADHD is associated with increased suicidality, Dr. Levy’s recent study involving 1,516 youths aged 6-17 years attending an outpatient ADHD clinic demonstrated that this increased risk is mediated by depression and irritability in roughly equal measures. Moreover, upon controlling for those two factors in a multivariate analysis, ADHD symptoms, per se, had no direct effect on risk of suicidality as defined by suidical ideation, attempts, or self-harm.
The clinical take-home message is that assessing irritability, as well as depression, may bolster an estimate of suicidality and help in managing suicidal risk in ADHD, according to Dr. Levy, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and head of behavioral regulation services at the Geha Mental Health Center in Petah Tikva, Israel.
The study included separate parent- and teacher-structured reports of the youths’ ADHD symptoms, suicidality, depression, irritability, and anxiety.
In multivariate analyses, parent-reported depression accounted for 39.1% of the association between ADHD symptoms and suicidality, while irritability symptoms mediated 36.8% of the total effect. In the teachers’ reports, depression and irritability symptoms accounted for 45.3% and 38.4% of the association. Anxiety symptoms mediated 19% of the relationship between ADHD and suicidality by parental report but had no significant impact on the association according to teacher report in the recently published study.
Dr. Levy noted that, in the DSM-5, irritability cuts across diagnostic categories. It is not only a core dimension of ADHD, but of the other externalizing disorders – conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder – as well, and also of neurodevelopmental, internalizing, and stress-related disorders.
Interventional studies aimed at dampening irritability as a potential strategy to reduce suicidality haven’t yet been done, but they deserve research priority status, in Dr. Levy’s view. Numerous functional dimensions that influence irritability are potential targets, including aggression, negative affect, low tolerance of frustration, skewed threat perception, and impaired self-regulation, according to the psychiatrist.
Most suicidal youths are attempting to cope with mental disorders. The most prevalent of these are major depressive disorder and dysthymia, followed by externalizing disorders. And among the externalizing disorders, conduct disorder stands out in terms of the magnitude of associated suicidality risk. In a large Taiwanese national study including 3,711 adolescents with conduct disorder and 14,844 age- and sex-matched controls, conduct disorder was associated with an adjusted 5.17-fold increased risk of subsequent suicide attempts over the next 10 years in a multivariate regression analysis adjusted for other psychiatric comorbidities and demographics.
In addition to depression, irritability symptoms, and conduct problems, other risk factors that should be part of a suicidality assessment in children and adolescents with ADHD include substance use, anxiety, poor family support, and bullying and/or being bullied. But, perhaps surprisingly, not impulsivity, Dr. Levy said.
“There is a widely held perception that impulsivity imparts a risk for suicidality, and especially in the transition from ideation to attempt. However, more recent evidence fails to show a convincing association,” according to Dr. Levy.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Levy T. ECNP 2020, Session EDU.02.
FROM ECNP 2020
Key clinical point: Assessment of irritability symptoms and depression may be helpful in managing suicidality risk in ADHD.
Major finding: Parent- and teacher-reported depression and irritability symptoms mediated up to 84% of the association between pediatric ADHD and suicidality.
Study details: This cross-sectional study examined the role of irritability, depression, and anxiety in suicidality among 1,516 children and adolescents at an outpatient ADHD clinic.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.
Source: Levy T. ECNP 2020, Session EDU.02.
Is patient suicide in psychiatry a medical error?
When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.
Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.
“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.
Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.
Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.
“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.
Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.
“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”
Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.
One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.
Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.
When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”
Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.
The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
Stopping the blame game
Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.
Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.
“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.
“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.
To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.
“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.
Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”
However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
‘Horrendous event’
Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.
In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.
“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.
The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.
“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.
In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.
Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.
Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.
“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
‘Will I be sued?’
Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.
Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.
The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”
“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.
For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.
Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.
In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
Beware how you share
Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.
However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.
Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.
“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.
That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”
For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
Support for psychiatrists
Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.
During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”
Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”
Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.
Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.
“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.
Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.
Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.
“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.
Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.
“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”
Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.
One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.
Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.
When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”
Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.
The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
Stopping the blame game
Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.
Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.
“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.
“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.
To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.
“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.
Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”
However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
‘Horrendous event’
Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.
In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.
“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.
The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.
“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.
In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.
Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.
Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.
“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
‘Will I be sued?’
Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.
Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.
The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”
“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.
For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.
Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.
In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
Beware how you share
Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.
However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.
Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.
“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.
That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”
For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
Support for psychiatrists
Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.
During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”
Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”
Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
When Rodney Vivian, MD, a psychiatrist in Cincinnati, was sued for medical malpractice after a psychiatric inpatient died by suicide, he recalls being naive about the process and how difficult it would be. “I was thinking that truth and common sense would prevail. How stupid I was,” he said.
Although Dr. Vivian, who was at the time the medical director of a hospital psychiatric unit in Ohio, was found not liable in two appeals, the legal process dragged on for 6 years, creating an emotional roller coaster of sadness, fear, vulnerability, and anxiety.
“The lawsuit took a big chunk out of me, and there was a sense of unfairness. It was incredibly humiliating and destructive; and it did not make me a better person or psychiatrist,” Dr. Vivian said.
Dr. Vivian is just one of the many psychiatrists who have had their world turned upside down after a patient suicide. When such events occur, grief-stricken families often point the finger at the treating psychiatrist. Although lawsuits are rare in psychiatry, patient suicide can lead to a myriad of emotional, legal, and career consequences.
Tyler Black, MD, child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, likens patient suicide to “a nuclear bomb” but emphasizes the importance of not classifying such events as a medical error or assigning blame.
“Starting with the assumption that suicide is always avoidable is not evidence based,” Dr. Black said.
Although patient suicide can occur across medicine, the odds are alarmingly high in psychiatry.
“There’s at least a 50-50 chance that a psychiatrist is going to face the suicide of a patient,” said Eric Plakun, MD, medical director/CEO at the Austen Riggs Center, Stockbridge, Mass. a hospital-based facility that offers a continuum of psychiatric treatment. Quoting forensic psychiatrist Robert Simon, Dr. Plakun said: “There are two kinds of psychiatrists – those who have had a patient die by suicide, and those who will.”
Research from 2015 shows that, among specialists, psychiatrists are among the least likely to be sued. A 2007/2008 Physician Survey from the American Medical Association showed that 22.2% of psychiatrists had been sued for malpractice; the probability that they would face a claim each year was only 2.6%. However, failure to prevent suicide is one of the top reasons for lawsuits.
One report from 2008 suggests that 20%-68% of psychiatrists will lose a patient to suicide. A report cowritten by Dr. Plakun in 2005 notes that about one in six psychiatric interns and one in three psychiatric residents will experience a patient suicide some time during their training. The authors added that 50% of all psychiatrists will have a patient die by suicide during their career. That risk stays at about 50% for future patients even after a clinician experiences the death of a previous patient.
Although mental health professionals prevail in up to 80% of suicide-related malpractice cases, such events are still emotionally devastating for everyone involved.
When a patient dies by suicide, it is a huge event, he noted. “It fuels a lot of fear and a lot of guilt, worry, and sadness.”
Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, New York, noted that patient suicide will happen.
The problem with many administrators who talk about a target of “zero suicide” is that when suicide does occur, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that someone is to blame, said Dr. Appelbaum, who is also director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at Columbia University. “That’s not necessarily true and contributes to finger-pointing.”
Stopping the blame game
Dr. Black’s first experience as a psychiatry resident was arriving at the hospital and finding the body of a patient who had died by suicide by hanging. Although he did not know the patient, Dr. Black said he had a strong emotional response that was coupled with an intense and sometimes confusing reaction by the hospital administration, including what he called “nonsensical banning” of pencils on the ward.
Dr. Black is now the medical director of emergency psychiatry at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and specializes in suicidology and emergency/crisis youth mental health care. He said during a recent live chat on Twitter that he does not predict suicide but instead “assesses risk,” meaning he examines potential risk factors in his patients.
“If systems and administrators (and consulting doctors) could recognize this, the ‘blame game’ would severely decrease. From the advocacy end, we have to stop seeing suicide as a ‘medical error,’ ” Dr. Black tweeted.
“There’s a strong administrative push, especially in the face of suicide, to dive into the [occurrence] as if it must be that an error was made,” he said in an interview.
To help counteract any potential finger-pointing, Dr. Black created a free-to-download patient risk assessment document called the Assessment of Suicide and Risk Inventory (ASARI) for use at every patient visit.
“ASARI was designed to walk an assessor through their thinking process such that they can put all of their thoughts down on one piece of paper. It makes it a better communication document, and it’s definitely better medicolegal documentation,” he said.
Dr. Appelbaum noted that, although having documentation is beneficial, “I don’t think that you necessarily need to separate actions that are ‘protective’ from actions that are intended to help a patient.”
However, he pointed out that, if a psychiatrist conforms to or exceeds the standard of care, including conducting appropriate suicide risk assessments, developing an appropriate treatment plan, and keeping comprehensive documentation, these measures “should provide an effective defense to claims of malpractice or negligence.”
‘Horrendous event’
Dr. Vivian said that, during his 40-year career in psychiatry, there have been about 12 “office patients” who died by suicide. However, nothing prepared him for the fallout from a lawsuit.
In 2010, a patient who had overdosed was transferred to the psychiatric unit of Mercy Health–Clermont (Ohio) Hospital, where Dr. Vivian was the admitting physician. Although the hospital staff was ordered to check on her every 15 minutes, her husband found her unconscious from a hanging attempt when he came to visit the next evening. After she was transferred to the ICU, she was taken off life support and died a few days later.
“It was a horrendous event,” Dr. Vivian said.
The family sued the hospital, and the matter was settled out of court without Dr. Vivian’s knowledge. The family also filed a separate lawsuit against Dr. Vivian, which went to trial 3 years later.
“My insurance company’s claims person was very supportive and wanted me to not settle. She agreed that I didn’t do anything wrong and that I needed to face this,” he added.
In the first trial, a jury found Dr. Vivian not liable. Six months later, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal. A year after the first trial, the court of appeals also came back with a new ruling in his favor and, in a subsequent appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.
Dr. Vivian noted that there really are no winners in these situations. “Even though the jury ruled in my favor, there was never a sense of ‘success.’ I could never feel good about what happened.” He was told the insurance company spent more than $300,000 on his defense.
Although he no longer performs psychiatric inpatient admissions, Dr. Vivian continues to work in private practice and provides psychiatric consultation to patients at a local medical center.
“I consider my work as a blessing in my life, and I continue to learn from my patients,” he said.
‘Will I be sued?’
Dr. Appelbaum noted there is a difference between a malpractice claim that may be filed and a “payout” to plaintiffs because of a negotiated resolution of a case or an award that is made at trial.
Malpractice insurers may raise the rates of a physician who has been found at fault in one or more legal actions in which financial settlements have been paid out, he said.
The issue in any malpractice case is whether the psychiatrist met the standard of care, which is traditionally defined as “skill and learning that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing.”
“No physician is expected to be the guarantor of a good outcome of a case. Sometimes things go wrong. Merely because there’s a bad outcome, merely because a suicide has occurred, doesn’t mean that the psychiatrist was negligent,” Dr. Appelbaum said.
He believes all large centers should have a “clear-cut plan” in place to assist clinicians in the event of a patient suicide. Such plans should help in dealing with stress from losing a patient and should provide guidance about how to handle any potential lawsuit.
For those worried that a patient’s suicide will shadow them through their career, Dr. Appelbaum said that it can happen, especially in cases involving a financial settlement against the clinician.
Such cases must be reported to the national practitioner data bank, where they can be accessed by any licensing body in any state when physicians apply for a medical license.
In addition, Dr. Appelbaum pointed out that licensure, medical staff, and malpractice applications typically require disclosure of a history of successful or unsuccessful claims filed against a physician. Although that may be limited to the past 10 years, the requirement can go on indefinitely.
Beware how you share
Dr. Plakun noted that there is a sense of isolation for a clinician in cases of patient suicide and that physicians often turn inward. He added that, although it is important to talk with others, in institutions, this is best done in a “peer-review, protected space” – and perhaps with a lawyer present.
However, Dr. Appelbaum warned that sharing information, even in this type of setting, may not offer legal protection. Talking to others in order to get some emotional support is permitted once the statute of limitations for filing a claim has lapsed or if a claim has been closed.
Discussing a case of patient suicide with peers prior to that can have serious legal implications, he added. Colleagues can be called to testify in any resulting legal case and disclose what was said during such conversations.
“The typical advice that a risk manager, a claims manager, or an attorney would give to a clinician is, don’t talk to other people about it other than the lawyer or claims manager who’s dealing with the case,” he noted.
That said, there are three general exceptions to this rule. These include attorney-client privilege, any matters discussed with the physician’s own therapist, and, “depending on the state, there are varying protections for what’s considered ‘peer review.’ ”
For instance, when hospitals implement a formal review process after an event, what is said during discovery may be protected. However, not all states have such protection. That’s why it is important to understand what the law is in your particular state, said Dr. Appelbaum.
Support for psychiatrists
Kaz J. Nelson, MD, psychiatrist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, also works with high-risk populations, including those with acute suicidality and self-injury.
During a recent chat on patient suicide, Dr. Nelson tweeted: “Sadly in our field, suicide is not an IF but a WHEN. Don’t keep the inevitable shame and sadness to yourself.”
Dr. Nelson agreed with Dr. Black that it’s important to look into these occurrences as a quality improvement measure, but not as a way to assign blame. Preparing for potential patient loss “and having very solid, very supportive, very inclusive ‘postvention’ procedures” is critical, she noted. “When you don’t have these policies and procedures in place and have them very transparent, it creates a culture of silence around the issue.”
Dr. Plakun reiterated the importance of not staying silent. “We can’t simply surrender to the idea of not talking about patient suicide. We have to find a way to speak.”
A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Conquering the stigma of getting mental health care
Last summer, back when people traveled, I had the pleasure of being in Amsterdam for Pride Week. With a half-million tourists, it was a colorful and costumed display of LGBTQ pride, and both the streets and canals had celebrations with food, drinks, music, and displays beyond anything I could describe.
It was all not that long ago that the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Now we have Pride celebrations, and I don’t think twice about mentioning my brother-in-law’s husband, or a female colleague’s wife, nor am I shocked when I hear that the children of my friends are in the process of gender transition. Obviously, the idea that people express both their gender and their sexuality in diverse ways is not accepted by everyone, but we’ve come a long way toward acceptance of people who were once stigmatized and pathologized. I’ll also point out that this shift occurred despite the fact that the gay community was affected by AIDS.
There are many other differences – and illnesses – that our society has come to either accept or sympathize with more graciously over time, and yet both mental illness and substance abuse disorders remain stigmatized and punished. To put it bluntly, we have done a terrible job of making these conditions acceptable illnesses to have, even though we have done a reasonably good job of offering effective treatments. Cancer no longer carries the stigma it once did, even though cancer is a leading cause of death, and the treatments are painful, toxic, and may include the loss of body parts and hair. But if you become ill with cancer, your friends bring casseroles (or perhaps rotisserie chickens), and if you’re hospitalized with bipolar disorder or check into a drug treatment center, you’re more likely to be the recipient of judgment and even scorn.
We have to fix this. We talk about the need to destigmatize mental illness and substance use disorders, and to make these illnesses more on par with other diseases. Maybe that is the wrong call: These disorders sometimes cause people to behave in disruptive, dangerous, and illegal ways that we don’t often see with other illnesses. Frankly psychotic people may be seen as “other,” they may smell bad, they may behave in bizarre ways, and they may be frightening. Their rare acts of violence have been publicized so much that “He’s mentally ill” is accepted by the public as a full explanation for why someone would commit a mass shooting. Depression can cause people to be irritable and unpleasant, and our society equates a lack of motivation with laziness. While people may have sympathy for the suicidal thoughts and feelings of others, completed suicide leaves behind devastated survivors. People with substance use problems may become belligerent or commit crimes to support their addictions. In 2018, over 10,500 people were killed by drivers who were impaired by alcohol. I’m not sure how we destigmatize these conditions, but commercials, billboards, and educational programs aren’t doing it.
Fears around treatment
Perhaps our efforts need to go toward destigmatizing treatment. It is shocking to me how resistant people are to getting help, or having others know they are getting help, when treatment often renders them free from the psychological agony or misbehaviors caused by their condition.
Since I work in an outpatient setting, I see people who have made it beyond the barrier of seeking help. Almost all of my patients are willing to try medications – there is self-selection among those who chose to see a psychiatrist as opposed to another type of psychotherapist. I also believe that direct-to-consumer advertising has helped normalize the use of psychotropic medications.
When it comes to getting a higher level of care, however, the conversations are so much harder. Many of my patients insist they will never be admitted to a psychiatric unit, and when I ask depressed people if they are having suicidal thoughts, some tell me they are afraid to let me know they are for fear I might hospitalize them. This fear of hospitalization is present in people who have never been in a hospital and have only media depictions or their imaginations to go by, but I also see this with patients who have previously been hospitalized and have emerged from their inpatient stays feeling much better. While we know that any type of hospitalization involves a loss of control, unpleasant moments, and sometimes painful procedures, I have never heard anyone say that, if they were to have a second heart attack, they would refuse an admission to the cardiac care unit.
Discussions about treatment for substance use are even more difficult. People with addictions often don’t want to abstain from the substance they are using, and this is an enormous hurdle. Beyond that, they don’t like the labels that come with acknowledging a problem – words like “junkie,” “addict,” “drunk,” and “alcoholic” are hard to escape.
People fear hospitalization for many reasons: They fear losing control, they don’t recognize that they have a problem, or they rationalize their psychosis or substance use as normal. Most of all, they fear what others will think of them and what repercussions this will have for their futures. Patients would rather continue in a state of agony and dysfunction when inpatient treatment would make them better faster. This is nothing short of tragic.
What can we do? The answer is “a lot.” We need to work harder to make the hospital experience a pleasant one for patients. Inpatient units need to be clean, safe places where patients are treated with kindness, dignity, and respect and activities are appropriate, interesting, and promote healing.
Maria, a Maryland attorney, told me about her experience with inpatient treatment. “I experienced my hospitalization as jailing and acutely felt the loss of liberty, especially in the ER, where I was confined to something I recognized from my time visiting incarcerated and detained people as a holding cell, complete with a uniformed guard. I was scared to engage in any kind of meaningful self-advocacy around leaving out of fear for my license to practice law and of lengthening my time as an inpatient. As a result, I found myself concentrating on getting out, and not on getting well. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say now that my hospitalization was a lost opportunity, and the coercive elements were barriers to accessing the treatment that I needed, both at the time and in the years following the hospitalization.”
We have too many policies in place where infractions are met with force, seclusion, and sometimes restraint, and we need to be more flexible with these policies. If a psychiatric unit requires lab work prior to admission and the patient refuses, should force be used in the emergency department if there is nothing to indicate that the patient’s health is in imminent danger? And if the hospital has a policy that all psychiatric patients must disrobe to be examined for preexisting scars or contraband – this is an admission standard for some hospitals, but not others – and the patient refuses, what then? Typically, inpatients are not allowed access to their cell phones or the Internet (for many good reasons), but patients find this very upsetting; might it make sense to allow periods where they can use devices with supervision? Hospitals often forbid smoking, and people with psychiatric disorders may smoke – while it is a wonderful health ideal, is it reasonable to forbid smoking for the course of a hospitalization?
We must work to get questions about psychiatric and substance use disorders removed from any job- or licensure-related forms. There is no reason to believe that people answer these forms truthfully or that including these questions protects the public in any way. What we do know is that people don’t seek help because they, like Maria, are afraid of the consequences of getting care. It doesn’t matter if a surgeon’s abilities are limited because he has episodes of hypoglycemia or past episodes of mania, and the only question on licensing forms should be about current conditions that impair the ability to work. Every district branch of the American Psychiatric Association should be actively speaking with their state professional licensing boards about the harm these questions do.
We need better treatments that have fewer side effects, and we need to acknowledge that, while getting help is the right thing to do, not everyone finds the right treatment with the first attempt and not everyone gets better. Our party line to those who feel suicidal has been “Get Help,” often with a phone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. While this is an important resource to have readily available, many of the people who die of suicide are already in active treatment. Our party line needs to change to “Get Help, and if it isn’t working, Get Different Help.” We want to be careful that our messaging does not foster a sense of hopelessness in those who have sought care and still suffer.
It’s good to talk about the potential benefits of treatment, but we don’t have enough beds and we don’t have enough mental health clinicians. There are states where psychiatric patients who have committed no crime are held in jail cells while they wait for beds to open – that we allow this is nothing short of a disgrace. The sickest patients with treatment-resistant conditions need access to the best care, and that access should not be limited by finances or networks. And while I’m here: We need our mental health professionals to spend their time working with patients, not computer screens, check boxes, and prior authorization protocols.
Finally, we need to work with the media to show positive and accurate depictions of psychiatric treatment as something that helps. We are still undoing the harm of Nurse Ratched and the depiction of electroconvulsive therapy in the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” and the current focus on mental illness and violence does nothing to help people feel comfortable seeking care.
I’ll end with one more thought from Maria: “Mental health professionals need to talk about hospitalization up front, no matter how uncomfortable, and encourage patients to think about hospitalization as a treatment option on a continuum before it is needed, so they are not approaching hospitalization as an abstract concept, often with a lot of fear and stigma attached to it, but rather as an option that they might explore in a fact-based way.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She reported having nothing to disclose.
Last summer, back when people traveled, I had the pleasure of being in Amsterdam for Pride Week. With a half-million tourists, it was a colorful and costumed display of LGBTQ pride, and both the streets and canals had celebrations with food, drinks, music, and displays beyond anything I could describe.
It was all not that long ago that the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Now we have Pride celebrations, and I don’t think twice about mentioning my brother-in-law’s husband, or a female colleague’s wife, nor am I shocked when I hear that the children of my friends are in the process of gender transition. Obviously, the idea that people express both their gender and their sexuality in diverse ways is not accepted by everyone, but we’ve come a long way toward acceptance of people who were once stigmatized and pathologized. I’ll also point out that this shift occurred despite the fact that the gay community was affected by AIDS.
There are many other differences – and illnesses – that our society has come to either accept or sympathize with more graciously over time, and yet both mental illness and substance abuse disorders remain stigmatized and punished. To put it bluntly, we have done a terrible job of making these conditions acceptable illnesses to have, even though we have done a reasonably good job of offering effective treatments. Cancer no longer carries the stigma it once did, even though cancer is a leading cause of death, and the treatments are painful, toxic, and may include the loss of body parts and hair. But if you become ill with cancer, your friends bring casseroles (or perhaps rotisserie chickens), and if you’re hospitalized with bipolar disorder or check into a drug treatment center, you’re more likely to be the recipient of judgment and even scorn.
We have to fix this. We talk about the need to destigmatize mental illness and substance use disorders, and to make these illnesses more on par with other diseases. Maybe that is the wrong call: These disorders sometimes cause people to behave in disruptive, dangerous, and illegal ways that we don’t often see with other illnesses. Frankly psychotic people may be seen as “other,” they may smell bad, they may behave in bizarre ways, and they may be frightening. Their rare acts of violence have been publicized so much that “He’s mentally ill” is accepted by the public as a full explanation for why someone would commit a mass shooting. Depression can cause people to be irritable and unpleasant, and our society equates a lack of motivation with laziness. While people may have sympathy for the suicidal thoughts and feelings of others, completed suicide leaves behind devastated survivors. People with substance use problems may become belligerent or commit crimes to support their addictions. In 2018, over 10,500 people were killed by drivers who were impaired by alcohol. I’m not sure how we destigmatize these conditions, but commercials, billboards, and educational programs aren’t doing it.
Fears around treatment
Perhaps our efforts need to go toward destigmatizing treatment. It is shocking to me how resistant people are to getting help, or having others know they are getting help, when treatment often renders them free from the psychological agony or misbehaviors caused by their condition.
Since I work in an outpatient setting, I see people who have made it beyond the barrier of seeking help. Almost all of my patients are willing to try medications – there is self-selection among those who chose to see a psychiatrist as opposed to another type of psychotherapist. I also believe that direct-to-consumer advertising has helped normalize the use of psychotropic medications.
When it comes to getting a higher level of care, however, the conversations are so much harder. Many of my patients insist they will never be admitted to a psychiatric unit, and when I ask depressed people if they are having suicidal thoughts, some tell me they are afraid to let me know they are for fear I might hospitalize them. This fear of hospitalization is present in people who have never been in a hospital and have only media depictions or their imaginations to go by, but I also see this with patients who have previously been hospitalized and have emerged from their inpatient stays feeling much better. While we know that any type of hospitalization involves a loss of control, unpleasant moments, and sometimes painful procedures, I have never heard anyone say that, if they were to have a second heart attack, they would refuse an admission to the cardiac care unit.
Discussions about treatment for substance use are even more difficult. People with addictions often don’t want to abstain from the substance they are using, and this is an enormous hurdle. Beyond that, they don’t like the labels that come with acknowledging a problem – words like “junkie,” “addict,” “drunk,” and “alcoholic” are hard to escape.
People fear hospitalization for many reasons: They fear losing control, they don’t recognize that they have a problem, or they rationalize their psychosis or substance use as normal. Most of all, they fear what others will think of them and what repercussions this will have for their futures. Patients would rather continue in a state of agony and dysfunction when inpatient treatment would make them better faster. This is nothing short of tragic.
What can we do? The answer is “a lot.” We need to work harder to make the hospital experience a pleasant one for patients. Inpatient units need to be clean, safe places where patients are treated with kindness, dignity, and respect and activities are appropriate, interesting, and promote healing.
Maria, a Maryland attorney, told me about her experience with inpatient treatment. “I experienced my hospitalization as jailing and acutely felt the loss of liberty, especially in the ER, where I was confined to something I recognized from my time visiting incarcerated and detained people as a holding cell, complete with a uniformed guard. I was scared to engage in any kind of meaningful self-advocacy around leaving out of fear for my license to practice law and of lengthening my time as an inpatient. As a result, I found myself concentrating on getting out, and not on getting well. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say now that my hospitalization was a lost opportunity, and the coercive elements were barriers to accessing the treatment that I needed, both at the time and in the years following the hospitalization.”
We have too many policies in place where infractions are met with force, seclusion, and sometimes restraint, and we need to be more flexible with these policies. If a psychiatric unit requires lab work prior to admission and the patient refuses, should force be used in the emergency department if there is nothing to indicate that the patient’s health is in imminent danger? And if the hospital has a policy that all psychiatric patients must disrobe to be examined for preexisting scars or contraband – this is an admission standard for some hospitals, but not others – and the patient refuses, what then? Typically, inpatients are not allowed access to their cell phones or the Internet (for many good reasons), but patients find this very upsetting; might it make sense to allow periods where they can use devices with supervision? Hospitals often forbid smoking, and people with psychiatric disorders may smoke – while it is a wonderful health ideal, is it reasonable to forbid smoking for the course of a hospitalization?
We must work to get questions about psychiatric and substance use disorders removed from any job- or licensure-related forms. There is no reason to believe that people answer these forms truthfully or that including these questions protects the public in any way. What we do know is that people don’t seek help because they, like Maria, are afraid of the consequences of getting care. It doesn’t matter if a surgeon’s abilities are limited because he has episodes of hypoglycemia or past episodes of mania, and the only question on licensing forms should be about current conditions that impair the ability to work. Every district branch of the American Psychiatric Association should be actively speaking with their state professional licensing boards about the harm these questions do.
We need better treatments that have fewer side effects, and we need to acknowledge that, while getting help is the right thing to do, not everyone finds the right treatment with the first attempt and not everyone gets better. Our party line to those who feel suicidal has been “Get Help,” often with a phone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. While this is an important resource to have readily available, many of the people who die of suicide are already in active treatment. Our party line needs to change to “Get Help, and if it isn’t working, Get Different Help.” We want to be careful that our messaging does not foster a sense of hopelessness in those who have sought care and still suffer.
It’s good to talk about the potential benefits of treatment, but we don’t have enough beds and we don’t have enough mental health clinicians. There are states where psychiatric patients who have committed no crime are held in jail cells while they wait for beds to open – that we allow this is nothing short of a disgrace. The sickest patients with treatment-resistant conditions need access to the best care, and that access should not be limited by finances or networks. And while I’m here: We need our mental health professionals to spend their time working with patients, not computer screens, check boxes, and prior authorization protocols.
Finally, we need to work with the media to show positive and accurate depictions of psychiatric treatment as something that helps. We are still undoing the harm of Nurse Ratched and the depiction of electroconvulsive therapy in the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” and the current focus on mental illness and violence does nothing to help people feel comfortable seeking care.
I’ll end with one more thought from Maria: “Mental health professionals need to talk about hospitalization up front, no matter how uncomfortable, and encourage patients to think about hospitalization as a treatment option on a continuum before it is needed, so they are not approaching hospitalization as an abstract concept, often with a lot of fear and stigma attached to it, but rather as an option that they might explore in a fact-based way.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She reported having nothing to disclose.
Last summer, back when people traveled, I had the pleasure of being in Amsterdam for Pride Week. With a half-million tourists, it was a colorful and costumed display of LGBTQ pride, and both the streets and canals had celebrations with food, drinks, music, and displays beyond anything I could describe.
It was all not that long ago that the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. Now we have Pride celebrations, and I don’t think twice about mentioning my brother-in-law’s husband, or a female colleague’s wife, nor am I shocked when I hear that the children of my friends are in the process of gender transition. Obviously, the idea that people express both their gender and their sexuality in diverse ways is not accepted by everyone, but we’ve come a long way toward acceptance of people who were once stigmatized and pathologized. I’ll also point out that this shift occurred despite the fact that the gay community was affected by AIDS.
There are many other differences – and illnesses – that our society has come to either accept or sympathize with more graciously over time, and yet both mental illness and substance abuse disorders remain stigmatized and punished. To put it bluntly, we have done a terrible job of making these conditions acceptable illnesses to have, even though we have done a reasonably good job of offering effective treatments. Cancer no longer carries the stigma it once did, even though cancer is a leading cause of death, and the treatments are painful, toxic, and may include the loss of body parts and hair. But if you become ill with cancer, your friends bring casseroles (or perhaps rotisserie chickens), and if you’re hospitalized with bipolar disorder or check into a drug treatment center, you’re more likely to be the recipient of judgment and even scorn.
We have to fix this. We talk about the need to destigmatize mental illness and substance use disorders, and to make these illnesses more on par with other diseases. Maybe that is the wrong call: These disorders sometimes cause people to behave in disruptive, dangerous, and illegal ways that we don’t often see with other illnesses. Frankly psychotic people may be seen as “other,” they may smell bad, they may behave in bizarre ways, and they may be frightening. Their rare acts of violence have been publicized so much that “He’s mentally ill” is accepted by the public as a full explanation for why someone would commit a mass shooting. Depression can cause people to be irritable and unpleasant, and our society equates a lack of motivation with laziness. While people may have sympathy for the suicidal thoughts and feelings of others, completed suicide leaves behind devastated survivors. People with substance use problems may become belligerent or commit crimes to support their addictions. In 2018, over 10,500 people were killed by drivers who were impaired by alcohol. I’m not sure how we destigmatize these conditions, but commercials, billboards, and educational programs aren’t doing it.
Fears around treatment
Perhaps our efforts need to go toward destigmatizing treatment. It is shocking to me how resistant people are to getting help, or having others know they are getting help, when treatment often renders them free from the psychological agony or misbehaviors caused by their condition.
Since I work in an outpatient setting, I see people who have made it beyond the barrier of seeking help. Almost all of my patients are willing to try medications – there is self-selection among those who chose to see a psychiatrist as opposed to another type of psychotherapist. I also believe that direct-to-consumer advertising has helped normalize the use of psychotropic medications.
When it comes to getting a higher level of care, however, the conversations are so much harder. Many of my patients insist they will never be admitted to a psychiatric unit, and when I ask depressed people if they are having suicidal thoughts, some tell me they are afraid to let me know they are for fear I might hospitalize them. This fear of hospitalization is present in people who have never been in a hospital and have only media depictions or their imaginations to go by, but I also see this with patients who have previously been hospitalized and have emerged from their inpatient stays feeling much better. While we know that any type of hospitalization involves a loss of control, unpleasant moments, and sometimes painful procedures, I have never heard anyone say that, if they were to have a second heart attack, they would refuse an admission to the cardiac care unit.
Discussions about treatment for substance use are even more difficult. People with addictions often don’t want to abstain from the substance they are using, and this is an enormous hurdle. Beyond that, they don’t like the labels that come with acknowledging a problem – words like “junkie,” “addict,” “drunk,” and “alcoholic” are hard to escape.
People fear hospitalization for many reasons: They fear losing control, they don’t recognize that they have a problem, or they rationalize their psychosis or substance use as normal. Most of all, they fear what others will think of them and what repercussions this will have for their futures. Patients would rather continue in a state of agony and dysfunction when inpatient treatment would make them better faster. This is nothing short of tragic.
What can we do? The answer is “a lot.” We need to work harder to make the hospital experience a pleasant one for patients. Inpatient units need to be clean, safe places where patients are treated with kindness, dignity, and respect and activities are appropriate, interesting, and promote healing.
Maria, a Maryland attorney, told me about her experience with inpatient treatment. “I experienced my hospitalization as jailing and acutely felt the loss of liberty, especially in the ER, where I was confined to something I recognized from my time visiting incarcerated and detained people as a holding cell, complete with a uniformed guard. I was scared to engage in any kind of meaningful self-advocacy around leaving out of fear for my license to practice law and of lengthening my time as an inpatient. As a result, I found myself concentrating on getting out, and not on getting well. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say now that my hospitalization was a lost opportunity, and the coercive elements were barriers to accessing the treatment that I needed, both at the time and in the years following the hospitalization.”
We have too many policies in place where infractions are met with force, seclusion, and sometimes restraint, and we need to be more flexible with these policies. If a psychiatric unit requires lab work prior to admission and the patient refuses, should force be used in the emergency department if there is nothing to indicate that the patient’s health is in imminent danger? And if the hospital has a policy that all psychiatric patients must disrobe to be examined for preexisting scars or contraband – this is an admission standard for some hospitals, but not others – and the patient refuses, what then? Typically, inpatients are not allowed access to their cell phones or the Internet (for many good reasons), but patients find this very upsetting; might it make sense to allow periods where they can use devices with supervision? Hospitals often forbid smoking, and people with psychiatric disorders may smoke – while it is a wonderful health ideal, is it reasonable to forbid smoking for the course of a hospitalization?
We must work to get questions about psychiatric and substance use disorders removed from any job- or licensure-related forms. There is no reason to believe that people answer these forms truthfully or that including these questions protects the public in any way. What we do know is that people don’t seek help because they, like Maria, are afraid of the consequences of getting care. It doesn’t matter if a surgeon’s abilities are limited because he has episodes of hypoglycemia or past episodes of mania, and the only question on licensing forms should be about current conditions that impair the ability to work. Every district branch of the American Psychiatric Association should be actively speaking with their state professional licensing boards about the harm these questions do.
We need better treatments that have fewer side effects, and we need to acknowledge that, while getting help is the right thing to do, not everyone finds the right treatment with the first attempt and not everyone gets better. Our party line to those who feel suicidal has been “Get Help,” often with a phone number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. While this is an important resource to have readily available, many of the people who die of suicide are already in active treatment. Our party line needs to change to “Get Help, and if it isn’t working, Get Different Help.” We want to be careful that our messaging does not foster a sense of hopelessness in those who have sought care and still suffer.
It’s good to talk about the potential benefits of treatment, but we don’t have enough beds and we don’t have enough mental health clinicians. There are states where psychiatric patients who have committed no crime are held in jail cells while they wait for beds to open – that we allow this is nothing short of a disgrace. The sickest patients with treatment-resistant conditions need access to the best care, and that access should not be limited by finances or networks. And while I’m here: We need our mental health professionals to spend their time working with patients, not computer screens, check boxes, and prior authorization protocols.
Finally, we need to work with the media to show positive and accurate depictions of psychiatric treatment as something that helps. We are still undoing the harm of Nurse Ratched and the depiction of electroconvulsive therapy in the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” and the current focus on mental illness and violence does nothing to help people feel comfortable seeking care.
I’ll end with one more thought from Maria: “Mental health professionals need to talk about hospitalization up front, no matter how uncomfortable, and encourage patients to think about hospitalization as a treatment option on a continuum before it is needed, so they are not approaching hospitalization as an abstract concept, often with a lot of fear and stigma attached to it, but rather as an option that they might explore in a fact-based way.”
Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore. She reported having nothing to disclose.
Strategies offered for optimizing ECT anesthesia
General anesthesia for ECT gets short shrift in the psychiatric literature, yet it’s an indispensable part of the procedure, with a major impact on its safety and outcomes, Alexander Sartorius, MD, asserted at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Just how neglected is the topic?
“The two bibles of ECT – the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy’ and Richard Abrams’s ‘Electroconvulsive Therapy,’ contain only three pages on anesthesia out of several hundred pages,” noted Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.
Dr. Sartorius, who has published extensively on the management of general anesthesia in ECT, offered fresh insights into its optimization. He also shared how to swiftly identify and deal with its main side effects.
General anesthesia is an essential part of ECT for only one reason: Not to spare the patient from pain or trauma, as is widely supposed, but simply to avoid awareness of the muscle relaxant that’s given to prevent bone fractures and other injuries caused by motor seizure, the psychiatrist explained.
Four anesthetic agents traditionally used for ECT have fallen by the wayside. The two barbiturates, thiopental and methohexital, have problematic anticonvulsant properties that complicate their use in a procedure whose whole purpose is to induce a seizure. Plus, they have black-box warnings in some countries. Etomidate, in contrast, has no anticonvulsant effect; however, anesthesiologists are increasingly leery of the drug. A single dose completely suppresses the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis for more than 24 hours, and mounting evidence suggests that etomidate may be associated with increased mortality.
Dr. Sartorius is a fan of ketofol, a combination of two anesthetic agents – ketamine and propofol – that provide rapid onset and cessation of action, pharmacokinetic predictability, synergistic efficacy, and minimal adverse effects when the two drugs are given in doses lower than standard as monotherapy.
Propofol has attractive qualities as an anesthetic, but it is a very potent anticonvulsant with an adverse effect on seizure quality and duration. When used alone for general anesthesia in ECT, a higher stimulation dose is often necessary to achieve adequate seizure quality, which in turn may produce worse cognitive side effects. In contrast, ketamine, which is listed as an essential drug by the World Health Organization, has no anticonvulsive effects.
“My conclusion about ketamine alone is it has less side effects than feared, and it’s probably not more but definitely not less effective than the grand old four anesthetic agents,” Dr. Sartorius said.
Plus, ketamine shows promise as an antidepressant agent in and of itself. Moreover, the fact that patients require a lower ECT stimulation dose while under the influence of ketamine could result in fewer cognitive side effects, although that’s conjecture at this point, he added.
Ketofol is often administered in a 1:1 ratio of propofol to ketamine. That’s not optimum for each individual patient undergoing ECT, as in many cases it results in so much propofol that seizure quality is diminished, in Dr. Sartorius’s experience. He, therefore, recently published a retrospective study of 52 patients who received 919 ECT sessions with empirically determined doses of S-ketamine plus propofol for anesthesia. The endpoints were time in the recovery room and seizure duration and quality. Seizure quality was assessed as a composite of the ratio of duration of motor response to EEG seizure duration, peak heart rate, midictal amplitude, maximal interhemispheric coherence, and postictal suppression index.
The optimal S-ketamine/propofol ratio in terms of seizure quality was 1.52:1, with a mean relative dose of 0.72 mg/kg of S-ketamine and 0.54 mg/kg of propofol.
His team uses only the S-enantiomer of ketamine, not the racemic mixture known as ketamine, but his study results would translate to a 3:1 ratio of racemic ketamine to propofol, Dr. Sartorius said.
Time in the recovery room was dependent upon return of cardiorespiratory function and orientation status to baseline pre-ECT levels. Longer recovery room time proved to be significantly related to older age. The S-ketamine dose wasn’t a significant factor.
Propofol was injected prior to S-ketamine in all patients. This was followed 1-2 minutes later by administration of succinylcholine as a muscle relaxant. It’s important to then wait for at least another 2-3 minutes before delivering the ECT stimulation. Dr. Sartorius and others have demonstrated that waiting at least 4 minutes between anesthesia induction and delivery of the ECT charge results in a better-quality seizure.
“We have a timer running so we can be sure to wait longer than 4 minutes. That’s a large advantage if you want to reduce the anticonvulsant property of propofol,” he explained.
Anesthesia-related side effects
Dr. Sartorius addressed postictal agitation syndrome, postanesthetic shivering, cardiac arrhythmias, and hypersalivation.
Postictal agitation syndrome: The deeper the level of sedation, the less likely this complication. Historically, in ECT without anesthesia, the incidence of postictal agitation was as high as 50%. At the center where Dr. Sartorius works, it’s 2%-3%. The use of intraprocedural bispectral index monitoring of the achieved deepest level of sedation allows highly accurate prediction of postictal agitation.
“Do not restrain,” he advised. “Patients are aware of this problematic situation. You have to keep everything calm and use the least possible amount of physical limitation. The good thing is that it’s self-limited within 20 minutes in most cases. But in severe cases you have to escalate staff immediately, and you may want to use 10 mg of IV diazepam. ; a lower dose of anesthetic is not the solution.”
It is also important to watch for these possible complications:
- Postanesthetic shivering: This is a rare but potentially fatal complication. It’s important to be familiar with the grading system, and to recognize that grade 3 or 4 post-anesthetic shivering requires treatment. “The treatment of choice is clonidine. That should always be with you when you do ECT,” Dr. Sartorius observed.
- Cardiac arrhythmias: “ECT is a proarrhythmic intervention; don’t forget that,” he said.
- Poststimulation asystole: This occurs in more than half of treated patients. It’s caused by the current, not the seizure, and it stops within a few seconds after the current halts. If the asystoles bother the patient, try switching to bifrontal electrode placement. Right unilateral stimulation has been shown to increase the likelihood of asystole by 207-fold, compared with bifrontal stimulation.
- Tachycardia: This is another common complication of ECT. It responds well to a short-acting beta-blocker.
- Hypersalivation: The treatment of choice is glycopyrrolate, a muscarinic receptor antagonist that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier.
Dr. Sartorius reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Sartorius A et al. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.02.
General anesthesia for ECT gets short shrift in the psychiatric literature, yet it’s an indispensable part of the procedure, with a major impact on its safety and outcomes, Alexander Sartorius, MD, asserted at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Just how neglected is the topic?
“The two bibles of ECT – the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy’ and Richard Abrams’s ‘Electroconvulsive Therapy,’ contain only three pages on anesthesia out of several hundred pages,” noted Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.
Dr. Sartorius, who has published extensively on the management of general anesthesia in ECT, offered fresh insights into its optimization. He also shared how to swiftly identify and deal with its main side effects.
General anesthesia is an essential part of ECT for only one reason: Not to spare the patient from pain or trauma, as is widely supposed, but simply to avoid awareness of the muscle relaxant that’s given to prevent bone fractures and other injuries caused by motor seizure, the psychiatrist explained.
Four anesthetic agents traditionally used for ECT have fallen by the wayside. The two barbiturates, thiopental and methohexital, have problematic anticonvulsant properties that complicate their use in a procedure whose whole purpose is to induce a seizure. Plus, they have black-box warnings in some countries. Etomidate, in contrast, has no anticonvulsant effect; however, anesthesiologists are increasingly leery of the drug. A single dose completely suppresses the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis for more than 24 hours, and mounting evidence suggests that etomidate may be associated with increased mortality.
Dr. Sartorius is a fan of ketofol, a combination of two anesthetic agents – ketamine and propofol – that provide rapid onset and cessation of action, pharmacokinetic predictability, synergistic efficacy, and minimal adverse effects when the two drugs are given in doses lower than standard as monotherapy.
Propofol has attractive qualities as an anesthetic, but it is a very potent anticonvulsant with an adverse effect on seizure quality and duration. When used alone for general anesthesia in ECT, a higher stimulation dose is often necessary to achieve adequate seizure quality, which in turn may produce worse cognitive side effects. In contrast, ketamine, which is listed as an essential drug by the World Health Organization, has no anticonvulsive effects.
“My conclusion about ketamine alone is it has less side effects than feared, and it’s probably not more but definitely not less effective than the grand old four anesthetic agents,” Dr. Sartorius said.
Plus, ketamine shows promise as an antidepressant agent in and of itself. Moreover, the fact that patients require a lower ECT stimulation dose while under the influence of ketamine could result in fewer cognitive side effects, although that’s conjecture at this point, he added.
Ketofol is often administered in a 1:1 ratio of propofol to ketamine. That’s not optimum for each individual patient undergoing ECT, as in many cases it results in so much propofol that seizure quality is diminished, in Dr. Sartorius’s experience. He, therefore, recently published a retrospective study of 52 patients who received 919 ECT sessions with empirically determined doses of S-ketamine plus propofol for anesthesia. The endpoints were time in the recovery room and seizure duration and quality. Seizure quality was assessed as a composite of the ratio of duration of motor response to EEG seizure duration, peak heart rate, midictal amplitude, maximal interhemispheric coherence, and postictal suppression index.
The optimal S-ketamine/propofol ratio in terms of seizure quality was 1.52:1, with a mean relative dose of 0.72 mg/kg of S-ketamine and 0.54 mg/kg of propofol.
His team uses only the S-enantiomer of ketamine, not the racemic mixture known as ketamine, but his study results would translate to a 3:1 ratio of racemic ketamine to propofol, Dr. Sartorius said.
Time in the recovery room was dependent upon return of cardiorespiratory function and orientation status to baseline pre-ECT levels. Longer recovery room time proved to be significantly related to older age. The S-ketamine dose wasn’t a significant factor.
Propofol was injected prior to S-ketamine in all patients. This was followed 1-2 minutes later by administration of succinylcholine as a muscle relaxant. It’s important to then wait for at least another 2-3 minutes before delivering the ECT stimulation. Dr. Sartorius and others have demonstrated that waiting at least 4 minutes between anesthesia induction and delivery of the ECT charge results in a better-quality seizure.
“We have a timer running so we can be sure to wait longer than 4 minutes. That’s a large advantage if you want to reduce the anticonvulsant property of propofol,” he explained.
Anesthesia-related side effects
Dr. Sartorius addressed postictal agitation syndrome, postanesthetic shivering, cardiac arrhythmias, and hypersalivation.
Postictal agitation syndrome: The deeper the level of sedation, the less likely this complication. Historically, in ECT without anesthesia, the incidence of postictal agitation was as high as 50%. At the center where Dr. Sartorius works, it’s 2%-3%. The use of intraprocedural bispectral index monitoring of the achieved deepest level of sedation allows highly accurate prediction of postictal agitation.
“Do not restrain,” he advised. “Patients are aware of this problematic situation. You have to keep everything calm and use the least possible amount of physical limitation. The good thing is that it’s self-limited within 20 minutes in most cases. But in severe cases you have to escalate staff immediately, and you may want to use 10 mg of IV diazepam. ; a lower dose of anesthetic is not the solution.”
It is also important to watch for these possible complications:
- Postanesthetic shivering: This is a rare but potentially fatal complication. It’s important to be familiar with the grading system, and to recognize that grade 3 or 4 post-anesthetic shivering requires treatment. “The treatment of choice is clonidine. That should always be with you when you do ECT,” Dr. Sartorius observed.
- Cardiac arrhythmias: “ECT is a proarrhythmic intervention; don’t forget that,” he said.
- Poststimulation asystole: This occurs in more than half of treated patients. It’s caused by the current, not the seizure, and it stops within a few seconds after the current halts. If the asystoles bother the patient, try switching to bifrontal electrode placement. Right unilateral stimulation has been shown to increase the likelihood of asystole by 207-fold, compared with bifrontal stimulation.
- Tachycardia: This is another common complication of ECT. It responds well to a short-acting beta-blocker.
- Hypersalivation: The treatment of choice is glycopyrrolate, a muscarinic receptor antagonist that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier.
Dr. Sartorius reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Sartorius A et al. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.02.
General anesthesia for ECT gets short shrift in the psychiatric literature, yet it’s an indispensable part of the procedure, with a major impact on its safety and outcomes, Alexander Sartorius, MD, asserted at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Just how neglected is the topic?
“The two bibles of ECT – the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy’ and Richard Abrams’s ‘Electroconvulsive Therapy,’ contain only three pages on anesthesia out of several hundred pages,” noted Dr. Sartorius, a psychiatrist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany.
Dr. Sartorius, who has published extensively on the management of general anesthesia in ECT, offered fresh insights into its optimization. He also shared how to swiftly identify and deal with its main side effects.
General anesthesia is an essential part of ECT for only one reason: Not to spare the patient from pain or trauma, as is widely supposed, but simply to avoid awareness of the muscle relaxant that’s given to prevent bone fractures and other injuries caused by motor seizure, the psychiatrist explained.
Four anesthetic agents traditionally used for ECT have fallen by the wayside. The two barbiturates, thiopental and methohexital, have problematic anticonvulsant properties that complicate their use in a procedure whose whole purpose is to induce a seizure. Plus, they have black-box warnings in some countries. Etomidate, in contrast, has no anticonvulsant effect; however, anesthesiologists are increasingly leery of the drug. A single dose completely suppresses the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis for more than 24 hours, and mounting evidence suggests that etomidate may be associated with increased mortality.
Dr. Sartorius is a fan of ketofol, a combination of two anesthetic agents – ketamine and propofol – that provide rapid onset and cessation of action, pharmacokinetic predictability, synergistic efficacy, and minimal adverse effects when the two drugs are given in doses lower than standard as monotherapy.
Propofol has attractive qualities as an anesthetic, but it is a very potent anticonvulsant with an adverse effect on seizure quality and duration. When used alone for general anesthesia in ECT, a higher stimulation dose is often necessary to achieve adequate seizure quality, which in turn may produce worse cognitive side effects. In contrast, ketamine, which is listed as an essential drug by the World Health Organization, has no anticonvulsive effects.
“My conclusion about ketamine alone is it has less side effects than feared, and it’s probably not more but definitely not less effective than the grand old four anesthetic agents,” Dr. Sartorius said.
Plus, ketamine shows promise as an antidepressant agent in and of itself. Moreover, the fact that patients require a lower ECT stimulation dose while under the influence of ketamine could result in fewer cognitive side effects, although that’s conjecture at this point, he added.
Ketofol is often administered in a 1:1 ratio of propofol to ketamine. That’s not optimum for each individual patient undergoing ECT, as in many cases it results in so much propofol that seizure quality is diminished, in Dr. Sartorius’s experience. He, therefore, recently published a retrospective study of 52 patients who received 919 ECT sessions with empirically determined doses of S-ketamine plus propofol for anesthesia. The endpoints were time in the recovery room and seizure duration and quality. Seizure quality was assessed as a composite of the ratio of duration of motor response to EEG seizure duration, peak heart rate, midictal amplitude, maximal interhemispheric coherence, and postictal suppression index.
The optimal S-ketamine/propofol ratio in terms of seizure quality was 1.52:1, with a mean relative dose of 0.72 mg/kg of S-ketamine and 0.54 mg/kg of propofol.
His team uses only the S-enantiomer of ketamine, not the racemic mixture known as ketamine, but his study results would translate to a 3:1 ratio of racemic ketamine to propofol, Dr. Sartorius said.
Time in the recovery room was dependent upon return of cardiorespiratory function and orientation status to baseline pre-ECT levels. Longer recovery room time proved to be significantly related to older age. The S-ketamine dose wasn’t a significant factor.
Propofol was injected prior to S-ketamine in all patients. This was followed 1-2 minutes later by administration of succinylcholine as a muscle relaxant. It’s important to then wait for at least another 2-3 minutes before delivering the ECT stimulation. Dr. Sartorius and others have demonstrated that waiting at least 4 minutes between anesthesia induction and delivery of the ECT charge results in a better-quality seizure.
“We have a timer running so we can be sure to wait longer than 4 minutes. That’s a large advantage if you want to reduce the anticonvulsant property of propofol,” he explained.
Anesthesia-related side effects
Dr. Sartorius addressed postictal agitation syndrome, postanesthetic shivering, cardiac arrhythmias, and hypersalivation.
Postictal agitation syndrome: The deeper the level of sedation, the less likely this complication. Historically, in ECT without anesthesia, the incidence of postictal agitation was as high as 50%. At the center where Dr. Sartorius works, it’s 2%-3%. The use of intraprocedural bispectral index monitoring of the achieved deepest level of sedation allows highly accurate prediction of postictal agitation.
“Do not restrain,” he advised. “Patients are aware of this problematic situation. You have to keep everything calm and use the least possible amount of physical limitation. The good thing is that it’s self-limited within 20 minutes in most cases. But in severe cases you have to escalate staff immediately, and you may want to use 10 mg of IV diazepam. ; a lower dose of anesthetic is not the solution.”
It is also important to watch for these possible complications:
- Postanesthetic shivering: This is a rare but potentially fatal complication. It’s important to be familiar with the grading system, and to recognize that grade 3 or 4 post-anesthetic shivering requires treatment. “The treatment of choice is clonidine. That should always be with you when you do ECT,” Dr. Sartorius observed.
- Cardiac arrhythmias: “ECT is a proarrhythmic intervention; don’t forget that,” he said.
- Poststimulation asystole: This occurs in more than half of treated patients. It’s caused by the current, not the seizure, and it stops within a few seconds after the current halts. If the asystoles bother the patient, try switching to bifrontal electrode placement. Right unilateral stimulation has been shown to increase the likelihood of asystole by 207-fold, compared with bifrontal stimulation.
- Tachycardia: This is another common complication of ECT. It responds well to a short-acting beta-blocker.
- Hypersalivation: The treatment of choice is glycopyrrolate, a muscarinic receptor antagonist that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier.
Dr. Sartorius reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SOURCE: Sartorius A et al. ECNP 2020, Session EDU03.02.
FROM ECNP 2020
Adjunctive pimavanserin looks promising for anxious depression
Adjunctive pimavanserin brought clinically meaningful improvement in patients with anxious major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to standard antidepressants alone in a post hoc analysis of the CLARITY trial, Bryan Dirks, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
This is an intriguing observation, because it’s estimated that roughly 50% of individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have comorbid anxiety disorders or a high level of anxiety symptoms. Moreover, anxious depression has been associated with increased risk of suicidality, high unemployment, and impaired functioning.
CLARITY was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial whose positive results for the primary outcome have been published (J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Sep 24;80[6]:19m12928. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m12928). Because the encouraging findings regarding pimavanserin’s impact on anxious depression came from a post hoc analysis, the results need replication. That’s ongoing in a phase 3 trial of adjunctive pimavanserin versus placebo in patients with MDD, according to Dr. Dirks, director of clinical research at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, San Diego.
The CLARITY post hoc analysis included 104 patients with baseline MDD inadequately responsive to an SSRI or a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and anxious depression as defined by a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) anxiety/somatization factor subscale score of 7 or more. Twenty-nine of the patients were randomized to 34 mg of adjunctive oral pimavanserin once daily, and 75 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization factor score in the pimavanserin group had dropped by a mean of 5 points from a baseline of 8.8, a significantly greater effect than the 2.8-point drop in placebo-treated controls.
By week 5, the treatment response rate as defined by at least a 50% reduction in HAMD-17 total score from baseline was 55% with pimavanserin and 22% with placebo. The remission rate as indicated by a HAMD-17 total score below 7 was 24% in the pimavanserin group, compared with 5% with placebo. These results translated into an effect size of 0.78, considered by statisticians to be on the border between medium and large. Those response and remission rates in patients with anxious depression were higher with pimavanserin and lower with placebo than in the overall CLARITY trial.
as defined by a HAMD-17 total score of 24 or more plus an anxiety/somatization factor score of 7 or greater. Seventeen such patients were randomized to adjunctive pimavanserin, 36 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the mean HAMD total score had dropped by 17.4 points from a baseline of 27.6 in the pimavanserin group, compared with a 9.3-point reduction in controls.
“Of note, significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 with pimavanserin,” Dr. Dirks said.
Pimavanserin is a novel selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors. At present pimavanserin is Food Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but because of the drug’s unique mechanism of action it is under study for a variety of other mental disorders. Indeed, pimavanserin is now under FDA review for a possible expanded indication for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. The drug is also under study for schizophrenia as well as for MDD.
The CLARITY trial and this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Acadia Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Dirks B. ECNP 2020. Abstract P 094.
Adjunctive pimavanserin brought clinically meaningful improvement in patients with anxious major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to standard antidepressants alone in a post hoc analysis of the CLARITY trial, Bryan Dirks, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
This is an intriguing observation, because it’s estimated that roughly 50% of individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have comorbid anxiety disorders or a high level of anxiety symptoms. Moreover, anxious depression has been associated with increased risk of suicidality, high unemployment, and impaired functioning.
CLARITY was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial whose positive results for the primary outcome have been published (J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Sep 24;80[6]:19m12928. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m12928). Because the encouraging findings regarding pimavanserin’s impact on anxious depression came from a post hoc analysis, the results need replication. That’s ongoing in a phase 3 trial of adjunctive pimavanserin versus placebo in patients with MDD, according to Dr. Dirks, director of clinical research at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, San Diego.
The CLARITY post hoc analysis included 104 patients with baseline MDD inadequately responsive to an SSRI or a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and anxious depression as defined by a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) anxiety/somatization factor subscale score of 7 or more. Twenty-nine of the patients were randomized to 34 mg of adjunctive oral pimavanserin once daily, and 75 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization factor score in the pimavanserin group had dropped by a mean of 5 points from a baseline of 8.8, a significantly greater effect than the 2.8-point drop in placebo-treated controls.
By week 5, the treatment response rate as defined by at least a 50% reduction in HAMD-17 total score from baseline was 55% with pimavanserin and 22% with placebo. The remission rate as indicated by a HAMD-17 total score below 7 was 24% in the pimavanserin group, compared with 5% with placebo. These results translated into an effect size of 0.78, considered by statisticians to be on the border between medium and large. Those response and remission rates in patients with anxious depression were higher with pimavanserin and lower with placebo than in the overall CLARITY trial.
as defined by a HAMD-17 total score of 24 or more plus an anxiety/somatization factor score of 7 or greater. Seventeen such patients were randomized to adjunctive pimavanserin, 36 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the mean HAMD total score had dropped by 17.4 points from a baseline of 27.6 in the pimavanserin group, compared with a 9.3-point reduction in controls.
“Of note, significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 with pimavanserin,” Dr. Dirks said.
Pimavanserin is a novel selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors. At present pimavanserin is Food Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but because of the drug’s unique mechanism of action it is under study for a variety of other mental disorders. Indeed, pimavanserin is now under FDA review for a possible expanded indication for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. The drug is also under study for schizophrenia as well as for MDD.
The CLARITY trial and this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Acadia Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Dirks B. ECNP 2020. Abstract P 094.
Adjunctive pimavanserin brought clinically meaningful improvement in patients with anxious major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to standard antidepressants alone in a post hoc analysis of the CLARITY trial, Bryan Dirks, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
This is an intriguing observation, because it’s estimated that roughly 50% of individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) have comorbid anxiety disorders or a high level of anxiety symptoms. Moreover, anxious depression has been associated with increased risk of suicidality, high unemployment, and impaired functioning.
CLARITY was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial whose positive results for the primary outcome have been published (J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 Sep 24;80[6]:19m12928. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m12928). Because the encouraging findings regarding pimavanserin’s impact on anxious depression came from a post hoc analysis, the results need replication. That’s ongoing in a phase 3 trial of adjunctive pimavanserin versus placebo in patients with MDD, according to Dr. Dirks, director of clinical research at Acadia Pharmaceuticals, San Diego.
The CLARITY post hoc analysis included 104 patients with baseline MDD inadequately responsive to an SSRI or a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and anxious depression as defined by a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) anxiety/somatization factor subscale score of 7 or more. Twenty-nine of the patients were randomized to 34 mg of adjunctive oral pimavanserin once daily, and 75 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization factor score in the pimavanserin group had dropped by a mean of 5 points from a baseline of 8.8, a significantly greater effect than the 2.8-point drop in placebo-treated controls.
By week 5, the treatment response rate as defined by at least a 50% reduction in HAMD-17 total score from baseline was 55% with pimavanserin and 22% with placebo. The remission rate as indicated by a HAMD-17 total score below 7 was 24% in the pimavanserin group, compared with 5% with placebo. These results translated into an effect size of 0.78, considered by statisticians to be on the border between medium and large. Those response and remission rates in patients with anxious depression were higher with pimavanserin and lower with placebo than in the overall CLARITY trial.
as defined by a HAMD-17 total score of 24 or more plus an anxiety/somatization factor score of 7 or greater. Seventeen such patients were randomized to adjunctive pimavanserin, 36 to placebo. At 5 weeks, the mean HAMD total score had dropped by 17.4 points from a baseline of 27.6 in the pimavanserin group, compared with a 9.3-point reduction in controls.
“Of note, significant differences from placebo were observed as early as week 2 with pimavanserin,” Dr. Dirks said.
Pimavanserin is a novel selective serotonin inverse agonist with a high affinity for 5-HT2A receptors and low affinity for 5-HT2C receptors. At present pimavanserin is Food Drug Administration–approved as Nuplazid only for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but because of the drug’s unique mechanism of action it is under study for a variety of other mental disorders. Indeed, pimavanserin is now under FDA review for a possible expanded indication for treatment of dementia-related psychosis. The drug is also under study for schizophrenia as well as for MDD.
The CLARITY trial and this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Acadia Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Dirks B. ECNP 2020. Abstract P 094.
FROM ECNP 2020
Key clinical point: Pimavanserin may have a future as a novel treatment for anxious depression.
Major finding: Twenty-four percent of patients with anxious major depressive disorder inadequately responsive to standard antidepressant therapy achieved remission with 5 weeks of adjunctive pimavanserin, compared with 5% with placebo.
Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind CLARITY trial.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Acadia Pharmaceuticals and presented by a company employee.
Source: Dirks B. ECNP 2020. Abstract P 094.
COVID-19: A second wave of mental illness 'imminent'
The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.
“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.
In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.
Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.
The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.
It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.
The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.
“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.
“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.
As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.
The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.
How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?
“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.
“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.
Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.
“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.
In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.
Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.
The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.
It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.
The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.
“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.
“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.
As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.
The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.
How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?
“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.
“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.
Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The mental health consequences of COVID-19 deaths are likely to overwhelm an already tattered U.S. mental health system, leading to a lack of access, particularly for the most vulnerable, experts warn.
“A second wave of devastation is imminent, attributable to mental health consequences of COVID-19,” write Naomi Simon, MD, and coauthors with the department of psychiatry, New York University.
In a Viewpoint article published in JAMA on Oct. 12, physicians offer some sobering statistics.
Since February 2020, COVID-19 has taken the lives of more than 214,000 Americans. The number of deaths currently attributed to the virus is nearly four times the number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The magnitude of death over a short period is a tragedy on a “historic scale,” wrote Dr. Simon and colleagues.
The surge in mental health problems related to COVID-19 deaths will bring further challenges to individuals, families, and communities, including a spike in deaths from suicide and drug overdoses, they warned.
It’s important to consider, they noted, that each COVID-19 death leaves an estimated nine family members bereaved, which is projected to lead to an estimated 2 million bereaved individuals in the United States.
The necessary social distancing and quarantine measures implemented to fight the virus have amplified emotional turmoil and have disrupted the ability of personal support networks and communities to come together and grieve.
“Of central concern is the transformation of normal grief and distress into prolonged grief and major depressive disorder and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Simon and colleagues said.
“Once established, these conditions can become chronic with additional comorbidities such as substance use disorders. Prolonged grief affects approximately 10% of bereaved individuals, but this is likely an underestimate for grief related to deaths from COVID-19,” they wrote.
As with the first COVID-19 wave, the mental health wave will disproportionately affect Black persons, Hispanic persons, older adults, persons in lower socioeconomic groups of all races and ethnicities, and healthcare workers, they note.
The psychological risks for health care and other essential workers are of particular concern, they say. “Supporting the mental health of these and other essential workforce is critical to readiness for managing recurrent waves of the pandemic,” they stated.
How will the United States manage this impending wave of mental health problems?
“The solution will require increased funding for mental health; widespread screening to identify individuals at highest risk including suicide risk; availability of primary care clinicians and mental health professionals trained to treat those with prolonged grief, depression, traumatic stress, and substance abuse; and a diligent focus on families and communities to creatively restore the approaches by which they have managed tragedy and loss over generations,” the authors wrote.
“History has shown that societies recover from such devastation when leaders and members are joined by a shared purpose, acting in a unified way to facilitate recovery. In such societies, there is a shared understanding that its members must care for one another because the loss of one is a loss for all. Above all, this shared understanding must be restored,” they concluded.
Dr. Simon has received personal fees from Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc, MGH Psychiatry Academy, Axovant Sciences, Springworks, Praxis Therapeutics, Aptinyx, Genomind, and Wiley (deputy editor, Depression and Anxiety). Saxe has received royalties from Guilford Press for the book Trauma Systems Therapy for Children and Teens (2016). Marmar serves on the scientific advisory board and owns equity in Receptor Life Sciences and serves on the PTSD advisory board for Otsuka Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
World Mental Health Day: Patients getting greater access
Telehealth visits allowing care to continue around the globe
Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.
The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.
Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.
These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.
As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.
Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.
Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.
International crisis is possible
According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.
Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.
It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.
Telehealth visits allowing care to continue around the globe
Telehealth visits allowing care to continue around the globe
Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.
The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.
Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.
These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.
As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.
Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.
Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.
International crisis is possible
According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.
Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.
It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.
Each year on Oct. 10, the world takes a moment to commemorate the significance of mental health and its impact on an individual’s life. This year, as we continue to reflect beyond World Mental Health Day, we see the world in a different light. Creating awareness for mental health issues and expanding access to psychiatric services has now become more essential than ever before.
The year 2020 will forever be known as the beginning of the “COVID era” as, unfortunately, the whole world as we know it adapts and reconstructs amid the rise of this global pandemic. This era has brought with it a wave of unemployment, social isolation, economic disaster, death, and disability. It is inevitable that such changes have brought forth perpetual fear and uncertainty, which have taken their toll not only on individuals’ physical health but largely on their mental health as well.
Factors that perpetuate deteriorating mental health include unemployment, poverty, isolation, fear and loss of loved ones – all of which have been further exacerbated globally, thanks to the current pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 450 million people in the world suffer from mental illness, and one in four individuals are affected by mental illness in some stage of their lives. This means that mental illness accounts for 13% of the total global burden of disease.
These challenges include providing care in difficult circumstances, going to work afraid of bringing COVID-19 home, and vulnerability toward becoming mentally and physically ill. An immense sense of responsibility toward patients with mental illness, coupled with continuous fear of becoming infected with this novel virus, has made managing the mental health of our patients all the more challenging.
As a psychiatrist (A.A.M.), I have noticed a massive increase in both the incidence and prevalence of mental illness. Emergency departments are full of patients presenting with suicidal attempts/ideation. Substance abuse has increased in greater magnitude, and outpatients are presenting with escalating numbers of depression and anxiety. Relapse of symptoms among stable patients has been another major problem. Incidents of domestic violence, road rage, and impaired driving secondary to alcoholism leading to psychiatric consultations have also risen drastically.
Mental health units in hospitals are tremendously busy with scarce availability of beds. The increase in waiting times for allocation of beds has also become a major concern globally.
Governments have allocated more funds and are actively attempting to mobilize resources in the developed world. However, adapting to the circumstances has proven to be far more challenging in many regions of the developing world. To avoid personal contacts in health settings, governments have allowed virtual consultations, which has proven to be a highly commendable decision. The use of telephone and video consultations has allowed physicians, particularly psychiatrists, to continue to provide health care to their patients while maintaining social distance. Crisis services have also become far more active, which can help in alleviating mental health emergencies to a great extent.
International crisis is possible
According to the director of the World Federation for Mental Health, citing the report of World Economic Forum, mental health problems could cost the global economy up to $16 trillion between 2010 and 2030, and if this matter is not addressed, it could potentially lead to an international mental health crisis. If the pandemic continues to create such a large impact for a prolonged period of time, the state of mental health globally will continue to be a major concern.
Universal effort is imperative to strengthen the mental health service and increase our ability to provide care for vulnerable individuals. This can be achieved through collaboration with other stakeholders, the allied health sector, the WHO, and the World Bank. The efforts should be directed toward the availability of funds, mobilizing and enhancing resources and training health care and crisis workers. This focus should not only be for developed countries but also for developing countries alike because we are all suffering from the impacts of this global crisis together.
It is important to raise awareness and support one another now more than ever before as we strive to improve and strengthen our mental health on this World Mental Health Day.
Dr. Muhammad is clinical professor of psychiatry at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. Ms. Amin is a 5th-year MBBS student at St. George’s University Hospital in London.