Schizophrenia & Other Psychotic Disorders

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of state psychiatric hospital beds has hit a historic low with about 11 beds per 100,000 population, a new report showed.

More than half of those beds (52%) were occupied by forensic patients, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) who were committed to the state hospital through the criminal legal system to help establish competency for trial.

“The shortage of psychiatric beds has real consequences for people with SMI — some will wait months in jail despite not yet being found guilty of a crime, others will be denied admission despite being critically ill, and others still will be discharged prematurely onto the streets to free up beds, where they may grow sicker and be at an elevated risk of mortality,” wrote report coauthors Shanti Silver of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) in Arlington and Elizabeth Sinclair Hanq of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors in Alexandria, Virginia.

Published online on January 24, Prevention Over Punishment: Finding the Right Balance of Civil and Forensic State Psychiatric Hospital Beds recommends that state and local governments work together to open additional state psychiatric hospital beds for civil and forensic patients with SMI.

To obtain data about the availability of state psychiatric hospital beds, TAC surveyed state officials from April to August 2023. Official responses were provided by 41 states and the District of Columbia.

Information for the remaining states was gathered from state websites, media articles, preexisting reports, hospital admission staff, or personal contacts living in those states.

The median occupancy rate for state-run hospitals in the new report was 90%, well above the 85% level investigators say usually signals a bed shortage. Overall, 73% of states reported occupancy rates above that level, with 11 states operating at 95% capacity.

The proportion of state psychiatric beds occupied by forensic patients has increased by 12% since 2016, largely driven by the growing number of individuals awaiting a competency determination to stand trial. Before they occupy these beds, however, people with SMI can languish in jail for months or even years, waiting for a bed to open.

About 15% of all state hospital beds and 31% of forensic beds across 34 states were occupied by individuals who had been found not guilty of a crime by reasons of insanity.

“The prioritization of admission of forensic patients has effectively created a system where someone must be arrested to access a state hospital bed,” report coauthor Lisa Dailey, TAC executive director, told this news organization. “But there are not enough beds for forensic patients either; thousands of inmates are waiting in jail on any given day for a bed to open up.”

There are several factors contributing to the scarcity of beds, including an existing hospital staffing shortage made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of appropriate discharge facilities.

Report authors offered a number of recommendations to federal, state, and local officials to increase the availability of state-run psychiatric hospital beds, including infrastructure changes involving recruiting and retaining staff for state hospitals and funding new discharge or step-down facilities so that patients have a place to recover when they leave the hospital.

Policy changes could also help, the report noted. Policymakers should consider “dismiss and transfer” procedures to address the backlog of nearly 6000 people with SMI waiting for a state hospital bed to achieve competency to stand trial. With “dismiss and transfer,” criminal charges are dismissed or suspended while an application for civil commitment is filed in the probate court. Once a civil commitment order has been issued, the individual is released to an outpatient commitment program for treatment.

“States must strive for prevention over punishment,” the report concluded.

There was no study funding reported, nor were disclosures available.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) — a novel therapy that combines a muscarinic receptor agonist with an anticholinergic agent — led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared with placebo in the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, a new study shows.

Xanomeline-trospium treatment was not associated with weight gain compared with placebo, and the incidences of extrapyramidal motor symptoms or akathisia were low and similar between treatment groups.

The EMERGENT-2 results “support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well-tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications,” write the authors, led by Inder Kaul, MD, with Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, Massachusetts.

The US Food and Drug Administration has accepted the company’s new drug application for KarXT for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act action date is September 26, 2024.

Results of the EMERGENT-2 trial were published online on December 14, 2023, in The Lancet.
 

Beyond the Dopamine System

Evidence suggests the muscarinic cholinergic system is involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

Xanomeline is an oral muscarinic cholinergic receptor agonist that does not have direct effects on the dopamine receptor. Combining it with trospium chloride, an oral pan-muscarinic receptor antagonist, is thought to reduce side effects associated with xanomeline’s activation of peripheral muscarinic receptors in peripheral tissues.

EMERGENT-2 was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 252 adults with schizophrenia who recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms warranting hospitalization.

Patients were treated for 5 weeks, with xanomeline-trospium titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

The primary endpoint was change in baseline to week 5 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (range, 30-210, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms).

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo. PANSS total scores fell by 21.2 points with xanomeline-trospium vs 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001; Cohen d effect size, 0.61).

All secondary endpoints were also met, with active treatment demonstrating statistically significant reductions compared with placebo at week 5 (P < .05).

These secondary endpoints included change in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and percentage of participants achieving at least a 30% reduction from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score.

Rates of discontinuation related to side effects were similar with active treatment and placebo (7% and 6%, respectively). The most common side effects with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21%), dyspepsia (19%), nausea (19%), vomiting (14%), headache (14%), hypertension (10%), dizziness (9%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (6%).

Xanomeline-trospium demonstrated a “distinctive safety and tolerability profile and was not associated with many of the adverse events typically associated with current antipsychotic treatments, including extrapyramidal motor symptoms, weight gain, changes in lipid and glucose parameters, and somnolence,” the authors report.
 

Potential ‘Game-Changer’

Xanomeline-trospium is a potential “game-changer” for patients with schizophrenia, Ann Shinn, MD, MPH, director of clinical research, Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Research Program, McLean Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, told this news organization.

There was a “clear separation between the people who were randomized to KarXT vs placebo. It’s not just a statistically significant but also a clinically significant difference in the reduction in symptoms of psychosis,” said Dr. Shinn, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“What’s really exciting” is that the drug did not cause weight gain or extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. “Both from an efficacy and side-effect perspective, I think more patients with schizophrenia are going to be willing to take medication,” Dr. Shinn noted.

Also commenting on this research for this news organization, René Kahn, MD, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, noted that current antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia work “directly on the dopamine system — either as dopamine antagonists or partial agonist.”

Xanomeline-trospium provides a “new mechanism of action, a new system that’s being targeted in the treatment of schizophrenia, and the effect size was rather large, so the drug didn’t just squeak by,” Dr. Kahn said.

Nonetheless, “we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s as effective or more effective than drugs currently on the market. The proof of the pudding will come when it’s marketed and used on thousands and thousands of patients,” Dr. Kahn added.

The coauthors of an accompanying commentary say the EMERGENT-2 findings “strongly support the possibility that agonism of muscarinic receptors provides the first viable antipsychotic alternative to blocking the dopamine D2 receptor for more than 70 years, and as such encourage further research.”

However, as a regulatory trial, EMERGENT-2 does not provide comparative data on the benefits and harms of KarXT with existing alternatives.

This represents a “missed opportunity to provide patients and clinicians with the information that is clinically needed — what is the treatment of choice for a patient?” writes Andrea Cipriani, MD, PhD, with the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and co-authors.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Several authors disclosed relationships with the company. Dr. Kahn disclosed various relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH. Dr. Cipriani received research, educational, and consultancy fees from the Italian Network for Paediatric Trials, the CARIPLO Foundation, Lundbeck, and Angelini Pharma and was chief investigator of one trial about seltorexant in adolescent depression, sponsored by Janssen. Dr. Shinn had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits for schizophrenia spectrum disorders increased by 15% in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, a new study showed. Researchers said the findings suggested a need for social policies that strengthen mental health prevention systems.

METHODOLOGY:

Investigators obtained data from the University of California (UC) Health Data Warehouse on ED visits at five large UC health systems.

They captured the ICD-10 codes relating to schizophrenia spectrum disorders for ED visits from January 2016 to December 2021 for patients aged 18 years and older.

TAKEAWAY:

Between January 2016 and December 2021, there were 377,800 psychiatric ED visits, 10% of which involved schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

The mean number of visits per month for schizophrenia spectrum disorders rose from 520 before the pandemic to 558 visits per month after March 2020.

Compared to prepandemic numbers and after controlling for visits for other psychiatric disorders, there were 70.5 additional visits (P = .02) for schizophrenia spectrum disorders at 1 month and 74.9 additional visits (P = .005) at 3 months following the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in California.

Investigators noted that prior studies indicated that COVID-19 infections may induce psychosis in some individuals, which could have been one underlying factor in the spike in cases.

IN PRACTICE:

“The COVID-19 pandemic draws attention to the vulnerability of patients with schizophrenia to macrosocial shocks, underscoring the importance of social policies related to income support, housing, and health insurance for future emergency preparedness and the need to strengthen mental healthcare systems,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Parvita Singh, PhD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data used in the study excluded patients younger than 18 years. In addition, there was no analysis for trends by age or sex, which could have added valuable information to the study, the authors wrote. There was also no way to identify patients with newly diagnosed schizophrenia.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Study disclosures are noted in the original study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid psychiatric disorders are associated with a twofold increased risk for schizophrenia, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed the data of 211,705 people aged 5-19 years (74% male; 54% aged 5-9 years) diagnosed with ADHD during 2010-2018 from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea.
• Participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis anytime in the 3 years prior to ADHD diagnosis were excluded.
• Investigators split participants into two groups — a group of those diagnosed with at least one psychiatric comorbidity within a year of ADHD diagnosis and another group comprising those with ADHD and no psychiatric comorbidities.

TAKEAWAY:

• 37% (77,890) of those with ADHD had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder.
• Participants with one psychiatric comorbidity had a 2.1-fold increased risk for a schizophrenia diagnosis than participants with no comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.14; 95% CI, 2.05-2.23).
• Schizophrenia risk increased with each additional comorbidity. There was a fourfold increased risk for schizophrenia in study participants with three or more psychiatric comorbidities (aHR, 4.26; 95% CI, 3.90-4.65) than those with no comorbidity.
• Psychiatric comorbidities included autism spectrum disorder, which had the strongest link to increased schizophrenia risk (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.26-2.62). Other comorbidities that showed strong associations were intellectual disability (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.95), tic disorder (aHR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.66-1.88), depression (aHR,1.68; 95% CI, 1.60-1.77), and bipolar disorder (aHR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.53-1.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate schizophrenia risk among children and adolescents with ADHD, with a particular focus on psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. They also noted that although patients had no psychiatric comorbidities at the time of ADHD diagnosis, the occurrence of psychiatric comorbidities was frequently observed prior to schizophrenia diagnosis. 

“These findings highlighted the significance of carefully monitoring psychiatric comorbidities in patients with ADHD to effectively mitigate the burden of schizophrenia,” they noted.

SOURCE:

Soo Min Jeon, PharmD, PhD, of Jeju National University in Jeju, South Korea, led the study, which was published online on November 30, 2023 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

Since the diagnosis of ADHD, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric comorbidities were based on diagnostic codes, the possibility of underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis cannot be ruled out. Also, some patients with ADHD chose the general health consultation (International Classification of Diseases - Z code) due to the social stigma surrounding mental health problems.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Basic Science Research Program through the Ministry of Education and the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Author disclosures can be found in the original paper.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

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

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Dr. Cerfolio

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Stanford University

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Dr. Cerfolio

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Stanford University

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Dr. Cerfolio

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Stanford University

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.