Article

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) has been transformed over the past decade with the advent of targeted therapies, including Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. Covalent BTK inhibitors, which are available in both the frontline and relapsed/refractory settings, include ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib.^1-3

BTK inhibitors have also demonstrated activity in higher-risk subgroups, including patients harboring TP53 aberrations. Clinical trials have shown encouraging outcomes of BTK inhibitors in these patients, and real-world studies have demonstrated similar findings.^4-6 Recently, a real-world Italian registry study similarly showed favorable outcomes in 747 patients with CLL carrying 17p- or TP53 or both mutations treated with first-line ibrutinib. in what appears to be the largest real-world analysis of this patient population (Rigolin et al). At 24 months, the median overall survival was not reached; the estimated treatment persistence and survival rates were 63.4% (95% CI 60.0%-67.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 79.9%-85.4%), respectively. The median time to treatment discontinuation was 37.4 months (95% CI 34.8-42.2 months). Disease progression or death was the reason for discontinuation in 45.8% of patients. Although ibrutinib is not generally the favored BTK inhibitor given an improved safety profile with next-generation options, these data provide real-world estimates for outcomes with BTK inhibitors in this large dataset of high-risk patients.

Although outcomes have improved for patients with CLL or SLL, it is common for resistance to targeted therapy to eventually occur. Noncovalent BTK inhibitors, such as pirtobrutinib, offer a promising approach for this population. The BRUIN trial was a phase 1/2 trial of pirtobrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or SLL (Mato et al). A total of 317 patients were treated, including 247 who had previously received a BTK inhibitor. Patients had been treated with a median of three prior lines of therapy and over 40% had been treated with a BCL-2 inhibitor. The overall response rate was 73.3% (95% CI 67.3%-78.7%) and increased to 82.2% (95% CI 76.8%-86.7%) when partial response with lymphocytosis was included. At a 19.4-month median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 19.6 (95% CI 16.9-22.1) months. The drug was also well-tolerated, with 2.8% of patients discontinuing therapy owing to treatment-related adverse events. Adverse events that can be seen with BTK inhibition, including hypertension, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and bleeding, were rare. This trial demonstrates that CLL/SLL cells can maintain dependency on the B-cell receptor pathway following treatment with a covalent inhibitor and that ongoing BTK inhibition using a novel mechanism is a feasible strategy. The optimal sequencing of pirtobrutinib with other available therapies, including BCL-2 inhibitors, remains unknown.

BTK inhibitors are also active in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). They are approved for relapsed/refractory disease and are being studied in earlier lines of therapy. Whereas early progression of disease (POD) has been shown to be an important prognostic marker in MCL, the impact of early relapse on outcome specifically after BTK inhibitor initiation is less clear.⁷ A recent multicente retrospective observational study aimed to determine the impact on time-to-POD between rituximab-containing front-line therapy and second-line BTK inhibitor and overall outcomes (Villa et al). This study included 360 adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL treated with second-line BTK inhibitor. Not surprisingly, the authors found that patients with POD within 24 months of first-line therapy had significantly shorter median progression-free survival (0.45 year vs 2.3 years; P < .001) and overall survival (0.9 year vs 5.5 years P < .001) compared with patients with relapse beyond 24 months. Furthermore, they found that Ki-67 ≥ 30% and Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) were also associated with progression‐free survival and overall survival from the start of a second-line BTK inhibitor, though to a lesser extent than time-to-POD. These variables were subsequently used to determine a second-line BTK MIPI, which can help inform which patients are most likely to benefit from a BTK inhibitor compared with other available options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or a clinical trial strategy.

BTK inhibitors are an important drug class for the treatment of lymphoid cancers and have changed the treatment paradigms in CLL/SLL and MCL. Additional studies evaluating combination strategies, sequencing approaches, time-limited options, and predictors of response are likely to further refine optimization of use in these diseases.

Additional References

1.         Barr PM, Owen C, Robak T, et al. Up to 8-year follow-up from RESONATE-2: first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv. 2022;6:3440-3450. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006434

2.         Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Efficacy and safety in a 4-year follow-up of the ELEVATE-TN study comparing acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia. 2022;36:1171-1175. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01485-x

3.         Tam CS, Brown JR, Kahl BS, et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1031-1043. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00293-5

4.         Ahn IE, Tian X, Wiestner A. Ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia with TP53 alterations. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:498-500. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2005943

5.         Allan JN, Shanafelt T, Wiestner A, et al. Long-term efficacy of first-line ibrutinib treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in patients with TP53 aberrations: a pooled analysis from four clinical trials. Br J Haematol. 2022;196:947-953. doi:10.1111/bjh.17984

6.         Mato AR, Tang B, Azmi S, et al. A clinical practice comparison of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with and without deletion 17p receiving first-line treatment with ibrutinib. Haematologica. 2022;107:2630-2640. doi:10.3324/haematol.2021.280376

7.         Bond DA, Switchenko JM, Villa D, et al. Early relapse identifies MCL patients with inferior survival after intensive or less intensive frontline therapy. Blood Adv. 2021;5:5179-5189. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004765

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) has been transformed over the past decade with the advent of targeted therapies, including Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. Covalent BTK inhibitors, which are available in both the frontline and relapsed/refractory settings, include ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib.^1-3

BTK inhibitors have also demonstrated activity in higher-risk subgroups, including patients harboring TP53 aberrations. Clinical trials have shown encouraging outcomes of BTK inhibitors in these patients, and real-world studies have demonstrated similar findings.^4-6 Recently, a real-world Italian registry study similarly showed favorable outcomes in 747 patients with CLL carrying 17p- or TP53 or both mutations treated with first-line ibrutinib. in what appears to be the largest real-world analysis of this patient population (Rigolin et al). At 24 months, the median overall survival was not reached; the estimated treatment persistence and survival rates were 63.4% (95% CI 60.0%-67.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 79.9%-85.4%), respectively. The median time to treatment discontinuation was 37.4 months (95% CI 34.8-42.2 months). Disease progression or death was the reason for discontinuation in 45.8% of patients. Although ibrutinib is not generally the favored BTK inhibitor given an improved safety profile with next-generation options, these data provide real-world estimates for outcomes with BTK inhibitors in this large dataset of high-risk patients.

Although outcomes have improved for patients with CLL or SLL, it is common for resistance to targeted therapy to eventually occur. Noncovalent BTK inhibitors, such as pirtobrutinib, offer a promising approach for this population. The BRUIN trial was a phase 1/2 trial of pirtobrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or SLL (Mato et al). A total of 317 patients were treated, including 247 who had previously received a BTK inhibitor. Patients had been treated with a median of three prior lines of therapy and over 40% had been treated with a BCL-2 inhibitor. The overall response rate was 73.3% (95% CI 67.3%-78.7%) and increased to 82.2% (95% CI 76.8%-86.7%) when partial response with lymphocytosis was included. At a 19.4-month median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 19.6 (95% CI 16.9-22.1) months. The drug was also well-tolerated, with 2.8% of patients discontinuing therapy owing to treatment-related adverse events. Adverse events that can be seen with BTK inhibition, including hypertension, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and bleeding, were rare. This trial demonstrates that CLL/SLL cells can maintain dependency on the B-cell receptor pathway following treatment with a covalent inhibitor and that ongoing BTK inhibition using a novel mechanism is a feasible strategy. The optimal sequencing of pirtobrutinib with other available therapies, including BCL-2 inhibitors, remains unknown.

BTK inhibitors are also active in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). They are approved for relapsed/refractory disease and are being studied in earlier lines of therapy. Whereas early progression of disease (POD) has been shown to be an important prognostic marker in MCL, the impact of early relapse on outcome specifically after BTK inhibitor initiation is less clear.⁷ A recent multicente retrospective observational study aimed to determine the impact on time-to-POD between rituximab-containing front-line therapy and second-line BTK inhibitor and overall outcomes (Villa et al). This study included 360 adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL treated with second-line BTK inhibitor. Not surprisingly, the authors found that patients with POD within 24 months of first-line therapy had significantly shorter median progression-free survival (0.45 year vs 2.3 years; P < .001) and overall survival (0.9 year vs 5.5 years P < .001) compared with patients with relapse beyond 24 months. Furthermore, they found that Ki-67 ≥ 30% and Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) were also associated with progression‐free survival and overall survival from the start of a second-line BTK inhibitor, though to a lesser extent than time-to-POD. These variables were subsequently used to determine a second-line BTK MIPI, which can help inform which patients are most likely to benefit from a BTK inhibitor compared with other available options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or a clinical trial strategy.

BTK inhibitors are an important drug class for the treatment of lymphoid cancers and have changed the treatment paradigms in CLL/SLL and MCL. Additional studies evaluating combination strategies, sequencing approaches, time-limited options, and predictors of response are likely to further refine optimization of use in these diseases.

Additional References

1.         Barr PM, Owen C, Robak T, et al. Up to 8-year follow-up from RESONATE-2: first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv. 2022;6:3440-3450. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006434

2.         Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Efficacy and safety in a 4-year follow-up of the ELEVATE-TN study comparing acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia. 2022;36:1171-1175. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01485-x

3.         Tam CS, Brown JR, Kahl BS, et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1031-1043. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00293-5

4.         Ahn IE, Tian X, Wiestner A. Ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia with TP53 alterations. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:498-500. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2005943

5.         Allan JN, Shanafelt T, Wiestner A, et al. Long-term efficacy of first-line ibrutinib treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in patients with TP53 aberrations: a pooled analysis from four clinical trials. Br J Haematol. 2022;196:947-953. doi:10.1111/bjh.17984

6.         Mato AR, Tang B, Azmi S, et al. A clinical practice comparison of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with and without deletion 17p receiving first-line treatment with ibrutinib. Haematologica. 2022;107:2630-2640. doi:10.3324/haematol.2021.280376

7.         Bond DA, Switchenko JM, Villa D, et al. Early relapse identifies MCL patients with inferior survival after intensive or less intensive frontline therapy. Blood Adv. 2021;5:5179-5189. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004765

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) has been transformed over the past decade with the advent of targeted therapies, including Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors. Covalent BTK inhibitors, which are available in both the frontline and relapsed/refractory settings, include ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib.^1-3

BTK inhibitors have also demonstrated activity in higher-risk subgroups, including patients harboring TP53 aberrations. Clinical trials have shown encouraging outcomes of BTK inhibitors in these patients, and real-world studies have demonstrated similar findings.^4-6 Recently, a real-world Italian registry study similarly showed favorable outcomes in 747 patients with CLL carrying 17p- or TP53 or both mutations treated with first-line ibrutinib. in what appears to be the largest real-world analysis of this patient population (Rigolin et al). At 24 months, the median overall survival was not reached; the estimated treatment persistence and survival rates were 63.4% (95% CI 60.0%-67.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 79.9%-85.4%), respectively. The median time to treatment discontinuation was 37.4 months (95% CI 34.8-42.2 months). Disease progression or death was the reason for discontinuation in 45.8% of patients. Although ibrutinib is not generally the favored BTK inhibitor given an improved safety profile with next-generation options, these data provide real-world estimates for outcomes with BTK inhibitors in this large dataset of high-risk patients.

Although outcomes have improved for patients with CLL or SLL, it is common for resistance to targeted therapy to eventually occur. Noncovalent BTK inhibitors, such as pirtobrutinib, offer a promising approach for this population. The BRUIN trial was a phase 1/2 trial of pirtobrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or SLL (Mato et al). A total of 317 patients were treated, including 247 who had previously received a BTK inhibitor. Patients had been treated with a median of three prior lines of therapy and over 40% had been treated with a BCL-2 inhibitor. The overall response rate was 73.3% (95% CI 67.3%-78.7%) and increased to 82.2% (95% CI 76.8%-86.7%) when partial response with lymphocytosis was included. At a 19.4-month median follow-up, the median progression-free survival was 19.6 (95% CI 16.9-22.1) months. The drug was also well-tolerated, with 2.8% of patients discontinuing therapy owing to treatment-related adverse events. Adverse events that can be seen with BTK inhibition, including hypertension, atrial fibrillation or flutter, and bleeding, were rare. This trial demonstrates that CLL/SLL cells can maintain dependency on the B-cell receptor pathway following treatment with a covalent inhibitor and that ongoing BTK inhibition using a novel mechanism is a feasible strategy. The optimal sequencing of pirtobrutinib with other available therapies, including BCL-2 inhibitors, remains unknown.

BTK inhibitors are also active in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). They are approved for relapsed/refractory disease and are being studied in earlier lines of therapy. Whereas early progression of disease (POD) has been shown to be an important prognostic marker in MCL, the impact of early relapse on outcome specifically after BTK inhibitor initiation is less clear.⁷ A recent multicente retrospective observational study aimed to determine the impact on time-to-POD between rituximab-containing front-line therapy and second-line BTK inhibitor and overall outcomes (Villa et al). This study included 360 adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL treated with second-line BTK inhibitor. Not surprisingly, the authors found that patients with POD within 24 months of first-line therapy had significantly shorter median progression-free survival (0.45 year vs 2.3 years; P < .001) and overall survival (0.9 year vs 5.5 years P < .001) compared with patients with relapse beyond 24 months. Furthermore, they found that Ki-67 ≥ 30% and Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) were also associated with progression‐free survival and overall survival from the start of a second-line BTK inhibitor, though to a lesser extent than time-to-POD. These variables were subsequently used to determine a second-line BTK MIPI, which can help inform which patients are most likely to benefit from a BTK inhibitor compared with other available options, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy or a clinical trial strategy.

BTK inhibitors are an important drug class for the treatment of lymphoid cancers and have changed the treatment paradigms in CLL/SLL and MCL. Additional studies evaluating combination strategies, sequencing approaches, time-limited options, and predictors of response are likely to further refine optimization of use in these diseases.

Additional References

1.         Barr PM, Owen C, Robak T, et al. Up to 8-year follow-up from RESONATE-2: first-line ibrutinib treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv. 2022;6:3440-3450. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006434

2.         Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Efficacy and safety in a 4-year follow-up of the ELEVATE-TN study comparing acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil in treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia. 2022;36:1171-1175. doi:10.1038/s41375-021-01485-x

3.         Tam CS, Brown JR, Kahl BS, et al. Zanubrutinib versus bendamustine and rituximab in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SEQUOIA): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:1031-1043. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00293-5

4.         Ahn IE, Tian X, Wiestner A. Ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia with TP53 alterations. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:498-500. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2005943

5.         Allan JN, Shanafelt T, Wiestner A, et al. Long-term efficacy of first-line ibrutinib treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in patients with TP53 aberrations: a pooled analysis from four clinical trials. Br J Haematol. 2022;196:947-953. doi:10.1111/bjh.17984

6.         Mato AR, Tang B, Azmi S, et al. A clinical practice comparison of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia with and without deletion 17p receiving first-line treatment with ibrutinib. Haematologica. 2022;107:2630-2640. doi:10.3324/haematol.2021.280376

7.         Bond DA, Switchenko JM, Villa D, et al. Early relapse identifies MCL patients with inferior survival after intensive or less intensive frontline therapy. Blood Adv. 2021;5:5179-5189. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021004765

The Diagnosis: Majocchi Granuloma

Histopathology showed rare follicular-based organisms highlighted by periodic acid–Schiff staining. This finding along with her use of clobetasol ointment on the hands led to a diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma in our patient. Clobetasol and crisaborole ointments were discontinued, and she was started on oral terbinafine 250 mg daily for 4 weeks, which resulted in resolution of the rash.

Majocchi granuloma (also known as nodular granulomatous perifolliculitis) is a perifollicular granulomatous process caused by a dermatophyte infection of the hair follicles. Trichophyton rubrum is the most commonly implicated organism, followed by Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Epidermophyton floccosum, which also cause tinea corporis and tinea pedis.¹ This condition most commonly occurs in women aged 20 to 35 years. Risk factors include trauma, occlusion of the hair follicles, immunosuppression, and use of potent topical corticosteroids in patients with tinea.^2,3 Immunocompetent patients present with perifollicular papules or pustules with erythematous scaly plaques on the extremities, while immunocompromised patients may have subcutaneous nodules or abscesses on any hair-bearing parts of the body.³

Majocchi granuloma is considered a dermal fungal infection in which the disruption of hair follicles from occlusion or trauma allows fungal organisms and keratinaceous material substrates to be introduced into the dermis. The differential diagnosis is based on the types of presenting lesions. The papules of Majocchi granuloma can resemble folliculitis, acne, or insect bites, while nodules can resemble erythema nodosum or furunculosis.⁴ Plaques, such as those seen in our patient, can mimic cellulitis and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.⁴ Additionally, the plaques may appear annular or figurate, which may resemble erythema gyratum repens or erythema annulare centrifugum.

The diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma often requires fungal culture and biopsy because a potassium hydroxide preparation is unable to distinguish between superficial and invasive dermatophytes.³ Histopathology will show perifollicular granulomatous inflammation. Fungal elements can be detected with periodic acid–Schiff or Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the hairs and hair follicles as well as dermal infiltrates.⁴

Topical corticosteroids should be discontinued. Systemic antifungals are the treatment of choice for Majocchi granuloma, as topical antifungals are not effective against deep fungal infections. Although there are no standard guidelines on duration or dosage, recommended regimens in immunocompetent patients include terbinafine 250 mg/d for 4 weeks; itraconazole pulse therapy consisting of 200 mg twice daily for 1 week with 2 weeks off therapy, then repeat the cycle for a total of 2 to 3 pulses; and griseofulvin 500 mg twice daily for 8 to 12 weeks (Table).³ For immunocompromised patients, combination therapy with more than one antifungal may be necessary.

The Diagnosis: Majocchi Granuloma

Histopathology showed rare follicular-based organisms highlighted by periodic acid–Schiff staining. This finding along with her use of clobetasol ointment on the hands led to a diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma in our patient. Clobetasol and crisaborole ointments were discontinued, and she was started on oral terbinafine 250 mg daily for 4 weeks, which resulted in resolution of the rash.

Majocchi granuloma (also known as nodular granulomatous perifolliculitis) is a perifollicular granulomatous process caused by a dermatophyte infection of the hair follicles. Trichophyton rubrum is the most commonly implicated organism, followed by Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Epidermophyton floccosum, which also cause tinea corporis and tinea pedis.¹ This condition most commonly occurs in women aged 20 to 35 years. Risk factors include trauma, occlusion of the hair follicles, immunosuppression, and use of potent topical corticosteroids in patients with tinea.^2,3 Immunocompetent patients present with perifollicular papules or pustules with erythematous scaly plaques on the extremities, while immunocompromised patients may have subcutaneous nodules or abscesses on any hair-bearing parts of the body.³

Majocchi granuloma is considered a dermal fungal infection in which the disruption of hair follicles from occlusion or trauma allows fungal organisms and keratinaceous material substrates to be introduced into the dermis. The differential diagnosis is based on the types of presenting lesions. The papules of Majocchi granuloma can resemble folliculitis, acne, or insect bites, while nodules can resemble erythema nodosum or furunculosis.⁴ Plaques, such as those seen in our patient, can mimic cellulitis and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.⁴ Additionally, the plaques may appear annular or figurate, which may resemble erythema gyratum repens or erythema annulare centrifugum.

The diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma often requires fungal culture and biopsy because a potassium hydroxide preparation is unable to distinguish between superficial and invasive dermatophytes.³ Histopathology will show perifollicular granulomatous inflammation. Fungal elements can be detected with periodic acid–Schiff or Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the hairs and hair follicles as well as dermal infiltrates.⁴

Topical corticosteroids should be discontinued. Systemic antifungals are the treatment of choice for Majocchi granuloma, as topical antifungals are not effective against deep fungal infections. Although there are no standard guidelines on duration or dosage, recommended regimens in immunocompetent patients include terbinafine 250 mg/d for 4 weeks; itraconazole pulse therapy consisting of 200 mg twice daily for 1 week with 2 weeks off therapy, then repeat the cycle for a total of 2 to 3 pulses; and griseofulvin 500 mg twice daily for 8 to 12 weeks (Table).³ For immunocompromised patients, combination therapy with more than one antifungal may be necessary.

The Diagnosis: Majocchi Granuloma

Histopathology showed rare follicular-based organisms highlighted by periodic acid–Schiff staining. This finding along with her use of clobetasol ointment on the hands led to a diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma in our patient. Clobetasol and crisaborole ointments were discontinued, and she was started on oral terbinafine 250 mg daily for 4 weeks, which resulted in resolution of the rash.

Majocchi granuloma (also known as nodular granulomatous perifolliculitis) is a perifollicular granulomatous process caused by a dermatophyte infection of the hair follicles. Trichophyton rubrum is the most commonly implicated organism, followed by Trichophyton mentagrophytes and Epidermophyton floccosum, which also cause tinea corporis and tinea pedis.¹ This condition most commonly occurs in women aged 20 to 35 years. Risk factors include trauma, occlusion of the hair follicles, immunosuppression, and use of potent topical corticosteroids in patients with tinea.^2,3 Immunocompetent patients present with perifollicular papules or pustules with erythematous scaly plaques on the extremities, while immunocompromised patients may have subcutaneous nodules or abscesses on any hair-bearing parts of the body.³

Majocchi granuloma is considered a dermal fungal infection in which the disruption of hair follicles from occlusion or trauma allows fungal organisms and keratinaceous material substrates to be introduced into the dermis. The differential diagnosis is based on the types of presenting lesions. The papules of Majocchi granuloma can resemble folliculitis, acne, or insect bites, while nodules can resemble erythema nodosum or furunculosis.⁴ Plaques, such as those seen in our patient, can mimic cellulitis and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.⁴ Additionally, the plaques may appear annular or figurate, which may resemble erythema gyratum repens or erythema annulare centrifugum.

The diagnosis of Majocchi granuloma often requires fungal culture and biopsy because a potassium hydroxide preparation is unable to distinguish between superficial and invasive dermatophytes.³ Histopathology will show perifollicular granulomatous inflammation. Fungal elements can be detected with periodic acid–Schiff or Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the hairs and hair follicles as well as dermal infiltrates.⁴

Topical corticosteroids should be discontinued. Systemic antifungals are the treatment of choice for Majocchi granuloma, as topical antifungals are not effective against deep fungal infections. Although there are no standard guidelines on duration or dosage, recommended regimens in immunocompetent patients include terbinafine 250 mg/d for 4 weeks; itraconazole pulse therapy consisting of 200 mg twice daily for 1 week with 2 weeks off therapy, then repeat the cycle for a total of 2 to 3 pulses; and griseofulvin 500 mg twice daily for 8 to 12 weeks (Table).³ For immunocompromised patients, combination therapy with more than one antifungal may be necessary.

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Off-label prescribing (OLP) refers to the practice of using medications for indications outside of those approved by the FDA, or in dosages, dose forms, or patient populations that have not been approved by the FDA.¹ OLP is common, occurring in many practice settings and nearly every medical specialty. In a 2006 review, Radley et al² found OLP accounted for 21% of the overall use of 160 common medications. The frequency of OLP varies between medication classes. Off-label use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics tends to be higher than that of other medications.^3,4 OLP is often more common in patient populations unlikely to be included in clinical trials due to ethical or logistical difficulties, such as pediatric patients and individuals who are pregnant. The Box summarizes several components that contribute to the prevalence of OLP and explains why this practice is often necessary for treating certain substance-related and addictive disorders.

Box

Several important medicolegal and ethical considerations surround OLP. The FDA prohibits off-label promotion, in which manufacturers advertise the use of a medication for off-label use.⁵ However, regulations allow physicians to use their best clinical judgment when prescribing medications for off-label use. When considering off-label use of any medication, physicians should review the most up-to-date research, including clinical trials, case reports, and reviews to safely support their decision-making. OLP should be guided by ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Physicians should obtain informed consent by conducting an appropriate discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of off-label medications. This conversation should be clearly documented, and physicians should provide written material regarding off-label options to patients when available. Finally, physicians should verify their patients’ understanding of this discussion, and allow patients to accept or decline off-label medications without pressure.

This article focuses on current and potential future medications available for OLP to treat patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD), gambling disorder (GD), stimulant use disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

Alcohol use disorder

CASE 1

Ms. X, age 67, has a history of severe AUD, mild renal impairment, and migraines. She presents to the outpatient clinic seeking help to drink less alcohol. Ms. X reports drinking 1 to 2 bottles of wine each day. She was previously treated for AUD but was not helped by naltrexone and did not tolerate disulfiram (abstinence was not her goal and she experienced significant adverse effects). Ms. X says she has a medical history of chronic migraines but denies other medical issues. The treatment team discusses alternative pharmacologic options, including acamprosate and topiramate. After outlining the dosing schedule and risks/benefits with Ms. X, you make the joint decision to start topiramate to reduce alcohol cravings and target her migraine symptoms.

Only 3 medications are FDA-approved for treating AUD: disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and injectable formulations), and acamprosate. Off-label options for AUD treatment include gabapentin, topiramate, and baclofen.

Gabapentin is FDA-approved for treating postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures in patients age ≥3. The exact mechanism of action is unclear, though its effects are possibly related to its activity as a calcium channel ligand. It also carries a structural resemblance to gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), though it lacks activity at GABA receptors.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of gabapentin for AUD produced promising results. In a comparison of gabapentin vs placebo for AUD, Anton et al⁶ found gabapentin led to significant increases in the number of participants with total alcohol abstinence and participants who reported reduced drinking. Notably, the effect was most prominent in those with heavy drinking patterns and pretreatment alcohol withdrawal symptoms. A total of 41% of participants with high alcohol withdrawal scores on pretreatment evaluation achieved total abstinence while taking gabapentin, compared to 1% in the placebo group.⁶ A meta-analysis of gabapentin for AUD by Kranzler et al⁷ included 7 RCTs and 32 effect measures. It found that although all outcome measures favored gabapentin over placebo, only the percentage of heavy drinking days was significantly different.

Gabapentin is dosed between 300 to 600 mg 3 times per day, but 1 study found that a higher dose (1,800 mg/d) was associated with better outcomes.⁸ Common adverse effects include sedation, dizziness, peripheral edema, and ataxia.

Continue to: Topiramate

Topiramate blocks voltage-gated sodium channels and enhances GABA-A receptor activity.⁹ It is indicated for the treatment of seizures, migraine prophylaxis, weight management, and weight loss. Several clinical trials, including RCTs,^10-12 demonstrated that topiramate was superior to placebo in reducing the percentage of heavy drinking days and overall drinking days. Some also showed that topiramate was associated with abstinence and reduced craving levels.^12,13 A meta-analysis by Blodgett et al¹⁴ found that compared to placebo, topiramate lowered the rate of heavy drinking and increased abstinence.

Topiramate is dosed from 50 to 150 mg twice daily, although some studies suggest a lower dose (≤75 mg/d) may be associated with clinical benefits.^15,16 One important clinical consideration: topiramate must follow a slow titration schedule (4 to 6 weeks) to increase tolerability and avoid adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation, word-finding difficulty, paresthesia, increased risk for renal calculi, dizziness, anorexia, and alterations in taste.

Baclofen is a GABA-B agonist FDA-approved for the treatment of muscle spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and reversible spasticity related to spinal cord lesions and multiple sclerosis. Of note, it is approved for treatment of AUD in Europe.

In a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs, Pierce et al¹⁷ found a greater likelihood of abstinence and greater time to first lapse of drinking with baclofen compared to placebo. Interestingly, a subgroup analysis found that the positive effects were limited to trials that used 30 to 60 mg/d of baclofen, and not evident in those that used higher doses. Additionally, there was no difference between baclofen and placebo with regard to several important outcomes, including alcohol cravings, anxiety, depression, or number of total abstinent days. A review by Andrade¹⁸ proposed that individualized treatment with high-dose baclofen (30 to 300 mg/d) may be a useful second-line approach in heavy drinkers who wish to reduce their alcohol intake.

Continue to: Before starting baclofen...

Before starting baclofen, patients should be informed about its adverse effects. Common adverse effects include sedation and motor impairment. More serious but less common adverse effects include seizures, respiratory depression with sleep apnea, severe mood disorders (ie, mania, depression, or suicide risk), and mental confusion. Baclofen should be gradually discontinued, because there is some risk of clinical withdrawal symptoms (ie, agitation, confusion, seizures, or delirium).

Among the medications discussed in this section, the evidence for gabapentin and topiramate is moderate to strong, while the evidence for baclofen is overall weaker or mixed. The American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline suggests offering gabapentin or topiramate to patients with moderate to severe AUD whose goal is to achieve abstinence or reduce alcohol use, or those who prefer gabapentin or topiramate or cannot tolerate or have not responded to naltrexone and acamprosate.¹⁹ Clinicians must ensure patients have no contra­indications to the use of these medications. Due to the moderate quality evidence for a significant reduction in heavy drinking and increased abstinence,^14,20 a practice guideline from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense²¹ recommends topiramate as 1 of 2 first-line treatments (the other is naltrexone). This guideline suggests gabapentin as a second-line treatment for AUD.²¹

Gambling disorder

CASE 2

Mr. P, age 28, seeks treatment for GD and cocaine use disorder. He reports a 7-year history of sports betting that has increasingly impaired his functioning over the past year. He lost his job, savings, and familial relationships due to his impulsive and risky behavior. Mr. P also reports frequent cocaine use, about 2 to 3 days per week, mostly on the weekends. The psychiatrist tells Mr. P there is no FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for GD or cocaine use disorder. The psychiatrist discusses the option of naltrexone as off-label treatment for GD with the goal of reducing Mr. P’s urges to gamble, and points to possible benefits for cocaine use disorder.

GD impacts approximately 0.5% of the adult US population and is often co-occurring with substance use disorders.²² It is thought to share neurobiological and clinical similarities with substance use disorders.²³ There are currently no FDA-approved medications to treat the disorder. In studies of GD, treatment success with antidepressants and mood stabilizers has not been consistent,^23,24 but some promising results have been published for the opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone^24-29and N-acetylcysteine (NAC).^30-32

Naltrexone is thought to reduce gambling behavior and urges via downstream modulation of mesolimbic dopamine circuitry.²⁴ It is FDA-approved for the treatment of AUD and opioid use disorder. Open-label RCTs have found a reduction in gambling urges and behavior with daily naltrexone.^25-27 Dosing at 50 mg/d appears to be just as efficacious as higher doses such as 100 and 150 mg/d.²⁷ When used as a daily as-needed medication for strong gambling urges or if an individual was planning to gamble, naltrexone 50 mg/d was not effective.²⁸

Continue to: Naltrexone typically is started...

Naltrexone typically is started at 25 mg/d to assess tolerability and quickly titrated to 50 mg/d. When titrating, common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and transient elevations in transaminases. Another opioid antagonist, nalmefene, has also been studied in patients with GD. An RCT by Grant et al²⁹ that evaluated 207 patients found that compared with placebo, nalmefene 25 mg/d for 16 weeks was associated with a significant reduction in gambling assessment scores. In Europe, nalmefene is approved for treating AUD but the oral formulation is not currently available in the US.

N-acetylcysteine is thought to potentially reverse neuronal dysfunction seen in addictive disorders by glutamatergic modulation.³⁰ Research investigating NAC for GD is scarce. A pilot study found 16 of 27 patients with GD reduced gambling behavior with a mean dose of 1,476.9 mg/d.³¹ An additional study investigating the addition of NAC to behavioral therapy in nicotine-dependent individuals with pathologic gambling found a reduction in problem gambling after 18 weeks (6 weeks + 3 months follow-up).³² Common but mild adverse effects associated with NAC are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

A meta-analysis by Goslar et al³³ that reviewed 34 studies (1,340 participants) found pharmacologic treatments were associated with large and medium pre-post reductions in global severity, frequency, and financial loss in patients with GD. RCTs studying opioid antagonists and mood stabilizers (combined with a cognitive intervention) as well as lithium for patients with comorbid bipolar disorder and GD demonstrated promising results.³³

Stimulant use disorder

There are no FDA-approved medications for stimulant use disorder. Multiple off-label options have been studied for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse and cocaine abuse.

Methamphetamine use has been expanding over the past decade with a 3.6-fold increase in positive methamphetamine screens in overdose deaths from 2011 to 2016.³⁴ Pharmacologic options studied for OLP of methamphetamine use disorder include mirtazapine, bupropion, naltrexone, and topiramate.

Continue to: Mirtazapine

Mirtazapine is an atypical antidepressant whose mechanism of action includes modulation of the serotonin, norepinephrine, and alpha-2 adrenergic systems. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). In a randomized placebo-controlled study, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at night was found to decrease methamphetamine use for active users and led to decreased sexual risk in men who have sex with men.³⁵ These results were supported by an additional RCT in which mirtazapine 30 mg/d significantly reduced rates of methamphetamine use vs placebo at 24 and 36 weeks despite poor medication adherence.³⁶ Adverse effects to monitor in patients treated with mirtazapine include increased appetite, weight gain, sedation, and constipation.

Bupropion is a norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitor that produces increased neurotransmission of norepinephrine and dopamine in the CNS. It is FDA-approved for the treatment of MDD and as an aid for smoking cessation. Bupropion has been studied for methamphetamine use disorder with mixed results. In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, bupropion sustained release 150 mg twice daily was not more effective than placebo in reducing methamphetamine use.³⁷ However, the extended-release formulation of bupropion 450 mg/d combined with long-acting injectable naltrexone was associated with a reduction in methamphetamine use over 12 weeks.³⁸ Bupropion is generally well tolerated; common adverse effects include insomnia, tremor, headache, and dizziness.

Naltrexone. Data about using oral naltrexone to treat stimulant use disorders are limited. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Jayaram-Lindström et al³⁹ found naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly reduced amphetamine use compared to placebo. Additionally, naltrexone 50 and 150 mg/d have been shown to reduce cocaine use over time in combination with therapy for cocaine-dependent patients and those dependent on alcohol and cocaine.^40,41

Topiramate has been studied for the treatment of cocaine use disorder. It is hypothesized that modulation of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system may contribute to decreased cocaine cravings.⁴² A pilot study by Kampman et al⁴³ found that after an 8-week titration of topiramate to 200 mg/d, individuals were more likely to achieve cocaine abstinence compared to those who receive placebo. In an RCT, Elkashef et al⁴⁴ did not find topiramate assisted with increased abstinence of methamphetamine in active users at a target dose of 200 mg/d. However, it was associated with reduced relapse rates in individuals who were abstinent prior to the study.⁴⁴ At a target dose of 300 mg/d, topiramate also outperformed placebo in decreasing days of cocaine use.⁴² Adverse effects of topiramate included paresthesia, alteration in taste, and difficulty with concentration.

Cannabis use disorder

In recent years, cannabis use in the US has greatly increased⁴⁵ but no medications are FDA-approved for treating cannabis use disorder. Studies of pharmacologic options for cannabis use disorder have had mixed results.⁴⁶ A meta-analysis by Bahji et al⁴⁷ of 24 studies investigating pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorder highlighted the lack of adequate evidence. In this section, we focus on a few positive trials of NAC and gabapentin.

Continue to: N-acetylcysteine

N-acetylcysteine. Studies investigating NAC 1,200 mg twice daily have been promising in adolescent and adult populations.^48-50 There are some mixed results, however. A large RCT found NAC 1,200 mg twice daily was not better than placebo in helping adults achieve abstinence from cannabis.⁵¹

Gabapentin may be a viable option for treating cannabis use disorder. A pilot study by Mason et al⁵² found gabapentin 1,200 mg/d was more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use among treatment-seeking adults.

When and how to consider OLP

OLP for addictive disorders is common and often necessary. This is primarily due to limitations of the FDA-approved medications and because there are no FDA-approved medications for many substance-related and addictive disorders (ie, GD, cannabis use disorder, and stimulant use disorder). When assessing pharmacotherapy options, if FDA-approved medications are available for certain diagnoses, clinicians should first consider them. The off-label medications discussed in this article are outlined in the Table.^{6-21,24-28,30-33,35-44,48-52}

The overall level of evidence to support the use of off-label medications is lower than that of FDA-approved medications, which contributes to potential medicolegal concerns of OLP. Off-label medications should be considered when there are no FDA-approved medications available, and the decision to use off-label medications should be based on evidence from the literature and current standard of care. Additionally, OLP is necessary if a patient cannot tolerate FDA-approved medications, is not helped by FDA-approved treatments, or when there are other clinical reasons to choose a particular off-label medication. For example, if a patient has comorbid AUD and obesity (or migraines), using topiramate may be appropriate because it may target alcohol cravings and can be helpful for weight loss (and migraine prophylaxis). Similarly, for patients with AUD and neuropathic pain, using gabapentin can be considered for its dual therapeutic effects.

It is critical for clinicians to understand the landscape of off-label options for treating addictive disorders. Additional research in the form of RCTs is needed to better clarify the efficacy and adverse effects of these treatments.

Continue to: Bottom Line

Off-label prescribing is prevalent in practice, including in the treatment of substance-related and addictive disorders. When considering off-label use of any medication, clinicians should review the most recent research, obtain informed consent from patients, and verify patients’ understanding of the potential risks and adverse effects associated with the particular medication.

Related Resources

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: how to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39. doi:10.12788/ cp.0035
• Stanciu CN, Gnanasegaram SA. Don’t balk at using medical therapy to manage alcohol use disorder. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):50-52.

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Baclofen • Ozobax
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Topiramate • Topamax

Burnout is an occupational phenomenon and a syndrome resulting from unsuccessfully managed chronic workplace stress. The characteristic features of burnout include feelings of exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy.¹ A career in surgery is associated with demanding and unpredictable work hours in a high-stress environment.^2-8 Research indicates that surgeons are at an elevated risk for developing burnout and mental health problems that can compromise patient care. A survey of the fellows of the American College of Surgeons found that 40% of surgeons experience burnout, 30% experience symptoms of depression, and 28% have a mental quality of life (QOL) score greater than one-half an SD below the population norm.^9,10 Surgeon burnout was also found to compromise the delivery of medical care.^9,10

To prevent serious harm to surgeons and patients, it is critical to understand the causative factors of burnout among surgeons and how they can be addressed. We conducted this systematic review to identify factors linked to burnout across surgical specialties and to suggest ways to mitigate these risk factors.  

Methods

To identify studies of burnout among surgeons, we conducted an electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycInfo, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The headings and keywords used are listed in Supplemental Table 1. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they evaluated residents or attendings, used a tool to measure burnout, and examined any surgical specialty. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2010; were conducted outside the United States; were review articles, commentaries, or abstracts without full text articles; evaluated medical school students; were published in a language other than English; did not use a tool to measure burnout; or examined a nonsurgical specialty.  Our analysis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)¹¹ and is outlined in the Supplemental Figure.

Results

Surgical specialties and burnout

We identified 56 studies^2-10,12-58 that focused on specific surgical specialties in relation to burnout. Supplemental Table 2^2-10,12-58 lists these studies and the surgical specialties they evaluated.

Work/life balance factors

Fifteen studies^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} examined the role of work/life balance in burnout. Table 1^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} lists the work/life factors these studies identified as being linked to burnout. Six studies^{2,4,18,22,32,47} discussed how decreased leisure time was linked to burnout. Eleven studies^{2,4,14,15,19,22,34,38,39,42,57} associated inabilities to meet family commitments with burnout. A lack of time to spend with family and not having adequate time to raise children was more prevalent among women. Seven studies^{2,3,18,22,32,34,47} implicated increased time commitment to work as playing a role in burnout. This increased time commitment was also found to be a compounding variable for other factors, such as limited time for family and leisure.

Work hours

Fifteen studies^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,41,42,44-46,50,52,56} examined work hours and burnout. Of these, 14^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,42,44-46,50,52,56} found a correlation between increased work hours and burnout, while only 1 study⁴¹ found no correlation between these factors. 

Medical errors

Six studies^{2,14,18,43,49,52} discussed the role of burnout in medical errors. Of these, 5^{2,14,43,49,52} reported a correlation between burnout and medical errors, while 1 study¹⁸ found no link between burnout and medical errors. The medical errors were self-reported.^14,49 They included actions that resulted in patient harm, sample collection error, and errors in medication orders and laboratory test orders.²

Continue to: Institutional and organizational factors

Eighteen studies^{3,13,14,18,20,22,23,29,30,36-38,44,45,47,54,56,57} examined how different organizational factors play a role in burnout. Four studies^3,13,20,37 discussed administrative/bureaucratic work, 4^20,45,54,57 mentioned electronic medical documentation, 2^22,30 covered duty hour regulations, 3^18,45,57 discussed mistreatment of physicians, and 6^{13,18,23,44,47,56} described the importance of workplace support in addressing burnout.

Physical and mental health factors

Eighteen studies^{6,7,14,15,17,20,26,27,29,34,43,44,48,52,54,57-59} discussed aspects of physical and mental health linked to burnout. Among these, 3^34,43,59 discussed the importance of physical health and focused on how improving physical health can reduce stress and burnout. Three studies^6,17,58 noted the prevalence of suicidal ideation in both residents and attendings experiencing prolonged burnout. Five studies^{26,29,43,44,48} described the systematic barriers that inhibit physicians from getting professional help. Two studies^7,27 reported marital status as a factor for burnout; participants who were single reported higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation. Five studies^{6,14,15,54,57} outlined how depression is associated with burnout.

Strategies to mitigate burnout

Fifteen studies^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} described strategies physicians use to cope with burnout. Table 2^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} outlines the strategies postulated and reported by these studies as helpful in reducing burnout. Two studies^2,4 mentioned that physicians may turn to maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse, to cope with stress and burnout. Four studies^2,4,53,56 mentioned the importance of social support in fighting burnout and building resilience. Ten studies^{2,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,57,58} described the benefits of institutional interventions, such as what administrators can do to reduce the rate of burnout. Three studies^5,36,53 postulated different adaptive behaviors physicians can implement to reduce burnout.

Take-home points 

Research that focused on work/life balance and burnout found excessive time commitment to work is a major factor associated with poor work/life balance. Residents who worked >80 hours a week had a significantly higher burnout rate.⁵⁶ One study found that 70% of residents reported not getting enough sleep, 30% reported not having enough energy for relationships, and 39% reported that they were not eating or exercising due to time constraints.⁴ A high correlation was found between the number of hours worked per week and rates of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are aspects of burnout measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).²⁴ The excessive time commitment to work not only contributes to burnout but also prevents physicians from getting professional help. In 1 study, both residents (56%) and attendings (24%) reported that 1 of the biggest barriers to getting help for their burnout symptoms was the inability to take time off.³⁴ Research indicates that the hours worked per week and work/home conflicts were independently associated with burnout and career satisfaction.¹⁵ A decrease of weekly work hours may give physicians time to meet their responsibilities at work and home, allowing for a decrease in burnout and an increase in career satisfaction.

Increased work hours have also been found to be correlated with medical errors. One study found that those who worked 60 hours per week were significantly less likely to report any major medical errors in the previous 3 months compared with those who worked 80 hours per week.⁹ The risk for the number of medical errors has been reported as being 2-fold if surgeons are unable to combat the burnout.⁴⁹ On the other hand, a positive and supportive environment with easy access to resources to combat burnout and burnout prevention programs can reduce the frequency of medical errors, which also can reduce the risk of malpractice, thus further reducing stress and burnout.⁴³

Continue to: In response to resident complaints...

In response to resident complaints about long duty hours, a new rule has been implemented that states residents cannot work >16 hours per shift.³⁰ This rule has been found to increase quality of life and prevent burnout.³⁰

The amount of time spent on electronic medical records and documentation has been a major complaint from doctors and was identified as a factor contributing to burnout.⁴⁵ It can act as a time drain that impedes the physician from providing optimal patient care and cause additional stress. This suggests the need for organizations to find solutions to minimize this strain.

A concerning issue reported as an institutional factor and associated with burnout is mistreatment through discrimination, harassment, and physical or verbal abuse. A recent study found 45% of general and vascular surgeons reported being mistreated in some fashion.⁵⁷ The strategies reported as helpful for institutions to combat mistreatment include resilience training, improved mentorship, and implicit bias training.⁵⁷

Burnout has been positively correlated with anxiety and depression.⁶ A recent study reported that 13% of orthopedic surgery residents screened positive for depression.⁴⁴ Higher levels of burnout and depersonalization have been found to be closely associated with increased rates of suicidal ideation.¹⁷ In a study of vascular surgeons, 8% were found to report suicidal ideation, and this increased to 15% among vascular surgeons who had higher levels of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion,⁵⁸ both of which are associated with burnout. In another study, surgery residents and fellows were found to have lower levels of personal achievement and higher levels of depersonalization, depressive symptoms, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation compared to attending physicians and the general population.⁵⁴ These findings spell out the association between burnout and depressive symptoms among surgeons and emphasize the need for institutions to create a culture that supports the mental health needs of their physicians. Without access to supportive resources, residents resort to alternative methods that may be detrimental in the long run. In a recent study, 17% of residents admitted to using alcohol, including binge drinking, to cope with their stress.⁴

Burnout and depression are linked to physical health risks such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and male infertility.⁶ Exercise has been shown to be beneficial for stress reduction, which can lead to changes in metabolism, inflammation, coagulation, and autonomic function.⁶ One study of surgeons found aerobic exercise and strength training were associated with lower rates of burnout and a higher quality of life.⁵⁹

Continue to: The amount of burnout physicians...

The amount of burnout physicians experience can be determined by how they respond to adversities. Adaptive behaviors such as socializing, mindfulness, volunteering, and exercising have been found to be protective against burnout.^6,37,54 Resilience training and maintaining low stress at work can decrease burnout.³⁷ These findings highlight the need for physicians to be trained in the appropriate ways to combat their burnout symptoms.

Unfortunately, seeking help by health care professionals to improve mental health has been stigmatized, causing physicians to not seek help and instead resort to other ways to cope with their distress.^26,34 While some of these coping methods may be positive, others—such as substance abuse or stress eating—can be maladaptive, leading to a poor quality of life, and in some cases, suicide.⁵⁴ It is vital that effective mental health services become more accessible and for health care professionals to become aware of their maladaptive behaviors.³⁴

Institutions finding ways to ease the path for their physicians to seek professional help to combat burnout may mitigate its negative impact. One strategy is to embed access to mental health services within regular wellness checks. Institutions can use wellness checks to provide resources to physicians who need it. These interventions have been found to be effective because they give physicians a safe space to seek help and become aware of any factors that could lead to burnout.¹⁸ Apart from these direct attempts to combat burnout, program-sponsored social events would also promote social connectedness with colleagues and contribute to a sense of well-being that could help decrease levels of burnout and depression.¹³ Mentorship has been shown to play a crucial role in decreasing burnout among residents. One study that examined the role of mentorship reported that 55% of residents felt supported, and of these, 96% felt mentorship was critical to their success.¹⁸ The role of institutions in helping to improve the well-being of surgeons is highlighted by the finding that increasing workplace support results in psychological resilience that can mitigate burnout at its roots.²⁹

Bottom Line

Surgeons are at risk for burnout, which can impact their mental health and reduce their professional efficacy. Both institutions and surgeons themselves can take action to prevent burnout and treat burnout early when it occurs.

Related Resources

• Pahal P, Lippmann S. Building a better work/life balance. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):e1-e2. doi:10.12788/cp.0158
• Gibson R, Hategan A. Physician burnout vs depression: recognize the signs. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(10):41-42.

Burnout is an occupational phenomenon and a syndrome resulting from unsuccessfully managed chronic workplace stress. The characteristic features of burnout include feelings of exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy.¹ A career in surgery is associated with demanding and unpredictable work hours in a high-stress environment.^2-8 Research indicates that surgeons are at an elevated risk for developing burnout and mental health problems that can compromise patient care. A survey of the fellows of the American College of Surgeons found that 40% of surgeons experience burnout, 30% experience symptoms of depression, and 28% have a mental quality of life (QOL) score greater than one-half an SD below the population norm.^9,10 Surgeon burnout was also found to compromise the delivery of medical care.^9,10

To prevent serious harm to surgeons and patients, it is critical to understand the causative factors of burnout among surgeons and how they can be addressed. We conducted this systematic review to identify factors linked to burnout across surgical specialties and to suggest ways to mitigate these risk factors.  

Methods

To identify studies of burnout among surgeons, we conducted an electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycInfo, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The headings and keywords used are listed in Supplemental Table 1. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they evaluated residents or attendings, used a tool to measure burnout, and examined any surgical specialty. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2010; were conducted outside the United States; were review articles, commentaries, or abstracts without full text articles; evaluated medical school students; were published in a language other than English; did not use a tool to measure burnout; or examined a nonsurgical specialty.  Our analysis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)¹¹ and is outlined in the Supplemental Figure.

Results

Surgical specialties and burnout

We identified 56 studies^2-10,12-58 that focused on specific surgical specialties in relation to burnout. Supplemental Table 2^2-10,12-58 lists these studies and the surgical specialties they evaluated.

Work/life balance factors

Fifteen studies^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} examined the role of work/life balance in burnout. Table 1^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} lists the work/life factors these studies identified as being linked to burnout. Six studies^{2,4,18,22,32,47} discussed how decreased leisure time was linked to burnout. Eleven studies^{2,4,14,15,19,22,34,38,39,42,57} associated inabilities to meet family commitments with burnout. A lack of time to spend with family and not having adequate time to raise children was more prevalent among women. Seven studies^{2,3,18,22,32,34,47} implicated increased time commitment to work as playing a role in burnout. This increased time commitment was also found to be a compounding variable for other factors, such as limited time for family and leisure.

Work hours

Fifteen studies^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,41,42,44-46,50,52,56} examined work hours and burnout. Of these, 14^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,42,44-46,50,52,56} found a correlation between increased work hours and burnout, while only 1 study⁴¹ found no correlation between these factors. 

Medical errors

Six studies^{2,14,18,43,49,52} discussed the role of burnout in medical errors. Of these, 5^{2,14,43,49,52} reported a correlation between burnout and medical errors, while 1 study¹⁸ found no link between burnout and medical errors. The medical errors were self-reported.^14,49 They included actions that resulted in patient harm, sample collection error, and errors in medication orders and laboratory test orders.²

Continue to: Institutional and organizational factors

Eighteen studies^{3,13,14,18,20,22,23,29,30,36-38,44,45,47,54,56,57} examined how different organizational factors play a role in burnout. Four studies^3,13,20,37 discussed administrative/bureaucratic work, 4^20,45,54,57 mentioned electronic medical documentation, 2^22,30 covered duty hour regulations, 3^18,45,57 discussed mistreatment of physicians, and 6^{13,18,23,44,47,56} described the importance of workplace support in addressing burnout.

Physical and mental health factors

Eighteen studies^{6,7,14,15,17,20,26,27,29,34,43,44,48,52,54,57-59} discussed aspects of physical and mental health linked to burnout. Among these, 3^34,43,59 discussed the importance of physical health and focused on how improving physical health can reduce stress and burnout. Three studies^6,17,58 noted the prevalence of suicidal ideation in both residents and attendings experiencing prolonged burnout. Five studies^{26,29,43,44,48} described the systematic barriers that inhibit physicians from getting professional help. Two studies^7,27 reported marital status as a factor for burnout; participants who were single reported higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation. Five studies^{6,14,15,54,57} outlined how depression is associated with burnout.

Strategies to mitigate burnout

Fifteen studies^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} described strategies physicians use to cope with burnout. Table 2^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} outlines the strategies postulated and reported by these studies as helpful in reducing burnout. Two studies^2,4 mentioned that physicians may turn to maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse, to cope with stress and burnout. Four studies^2,4,53,56 mentioned the importance of social support in fighting burnout and building resilience. Ten studies^{2,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,57,58} described the benefits of institutional interventions, such as what administrators can do to reduce the rate of burnout. Three studies^5,36,53 postulated different adaptive behaviors physicians can implement to reduce burnout.

Take-home points 

Research that focused on work/life balance and burnout found excessive time commitment to work is a major factor associated with poor work/life balance. Residents who worked >80 hours a week had a significantly higher burnout rate.⁵⁶ One study found that 70% of residents reported not getting enough sleep, 30% reported not having enough energy for relationships, and 39% reported that they were not eating or exercising due to time constraints.⁴ A high correlation was found between the number of hours worked per week and rates of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are aspects of burnout measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).²⁴ The excessive time commitment to work not only contributes to burnout but also prevents physicians from getting professional help. In 1 study, both residents (56%) and attendings (24%) reported that 1 of the biggest barriers to getting help for their burnout symptoms was the inability to take time off.³⁴ Research indicates that the hours worked per week and work/home conflicts were independently associated with burnout and career satisfaction.¹⁵ A decrease of weekly work hours may give physicians time to meet their responsibilities at work and home, allowing for a decrease in burnout and an increase in career satisfaction.

Increased work hours have also been found to be correlated with medical errors. One study found that those who worked 60 hours per week were significantly less likely to report any major medical errors in the previous 3 months compared with those who worked 80 hours per week.⁹ The risk for the number of medical errors has been reported as being 2-fold if surgeons are unable to combat the burnout.⁴⁹ On the other hand, a positive and supportive environment with easy access to resources to combat burnout and burnout prevention programs can reduce the frequency of medical errors, which also can reduce the risk of malpractice, thus further reducing stress and burnout.⁴³

Continue to: In response to resident complaints...

In response to resident complaints about long duty hours, a new rule has been implemented that states residents cannot work >16 hours per shift.³⁰ This rule has been found to increase quality of life and prevent burnout.³⁰

The amount of time spent on electronic medical records and documentation has been a major complaint from doctors and was identified as a factor contributing to burnout.⁴⁵ It can act as a time drain that impedes the physician from providing optimal patient care and cause additional stress. This suggests the need for organizations to find solutions to minimize this strain.

A concerning issue reported as an institutional factor and associated with burnout is mistreatment through discrimination, harassment, and physical or verbal abuse. A recent study found 45% of general and vascular surgeons reported being mistreated in some fashion.⁵⁷ The strategies reported as helpful for institutions to combat mistreatment include resilience training, improved mentorship, and implicit bias training.⁵⁷

Burnout has been positively correlated with anxiety and depression.⁶ A recent study reported that 13% of orthopedic surgery residents screened positive for depression.⁴⁴ Higher levels of burnout and depersonalization have been found to be closely associated with increased rates of suicidal ideation.¹⁷ In a study of vascular surgeons, 8% were found to report suicidal ideation, and this increased to 15% among vascular surgeons who had higher levels of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion,⁵⁸ both of which are associated with burnout. In another study, surgery residents and fellows were found to have lower levels of personal achievement and higher levels of depersonalization, depressive symptoms, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation compared to attending physicians and the general population.⁵⁴ These findings spell out the association between burnout and depressive symptoms among surgeons and emphasize the need for institutions to create a culture that supports the mental health needs of their physicians. Without access to supportive resources, residents resort to alternative methods that may be detrimental in the long run. In a recent study, 17% of residents admitted to using alcohol, including binge drinking, to cope with their stress.⁴

Burnout and depression are linked to physical health risks such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and male infertility.⁶ Exercise has been shown to be beneficial for stress reduction, which can lead to changes in metabolism, inflammation, coagulation, and autonomic function.⁶ One study of surgeons found aerobic exercise and strength training were associated with lower rates of burnout and a higher quality of life.⁵⁹

Continue to: The amount of burnout physicians...

The amount of burnout physicians experience can be determined by how they respond to adversities. Adaptive behaviors such as socializing, mindfulness, volunteering, and exercising have been found to be protective against burnout.^6,37,54 Resilience training and maintaining low stress at work can decrease burnout.³⁷ These findings highlight the need for physicians to be trained in the appropriate ways to combat their burnout symptoms.

Unfortunately, seeking help by health care professionals to improve mental health has been stigmatized, causing physicians to not seek help and instead resort to other ways to cope with their distress.^26,34 While some of these coping methods may be positive, others—such as substance abuse or stress eating—can be maladaptive, leading to a poor quality of life, and in some cases, suicide.⁵⁴ It is vital that effective mental health services become more accessible and for health care professionals to become aware of their maladaptive behaviors.³⁴

Institutions finding ways to ease the path for their physicians to seek professional help to combat burnout may mitigate its negative impact. One strategy is to embed access to mental health services within regular wellness checks. Institutions can use wellness checks to provide resources to physicians who need it. These interventions have been found to be effective because they give physicians a safe space to seek help and become aware of any factors that could lead to burnout.¹⁸ Apart from these direct attempts to combat burnout, program-sponsored social events would also promote social connectedness with colleagues and contribute to a sense of well-being that could help decrease levels of burnout and depression.¹³ Mentorship has been shown to play a crucial role in decreasing burnout among residents. One study that examined the role of mentorship reported that 55% of residents felt supported, and of these, 96% felt mentorship was critical to their success.¹⁸ The role of institutions in helping to improve the well-being of surgeons is highlighted by the finding that increasing workplace support results in psychological resilience that can mitigate burnout at its roots.²⁹

Bottom Line

Surgeons are at risk for burnout, which can impact their mental health and reduce their professional efficacy. Both institutions and surgeons themselves can take action to prevent burnout and treat burnout early when it occurs.

Related Resources

• Pahal P, Lippmann S. Building a better work/life balance. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):e1-e2. doi:10.12788/cp.0158
• Gibson R, Hategan A. Physician burnout vs depression: recognize the signs. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(10):41-42.

Burnout is an occupational phenomenon and a syndrome resulting from unsuccessfully managed chronic workplace stress. The characteristic features of burnout include feelings of exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy.¹ A career in surgery is associated with demanding and unpredictable work hours in a high-stress environment.^2-8 Research indicates that surgeons are at an elevated risk for developing burnout and mental health problems that can compromise patient care. A survey of the fellows of the American College of Surgeons found that 40% of surgeons experience burnout, 30% experience symptoms of depression, and 28% have a mental quality of life (QOL) score greater than one-half an SD below the population norm.^9,10 Surgeon burnout was also found to compromise the delivery of medical care.^9,10

To prevent serious harm to surgeons and patients, it is critical to understand the causative factors of burnout among surgeons and how they can be addressed. We conducted this systematic review to identify factors linked to burnout across surgical specialties and to suggest ways to mitigate these risk factors.  

Methods

To identify studies of burnout among surgeons, we conducted an electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycInfo, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The headings and keywords used are listed in Supplemental Table 1. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they evaluated residents or attendings, used a tool to measure burnout, and examined any surgical specialty. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2010; were conducted outside the United States; were review articles, commentaries, or abstracts without full text articles; evaluated medical school students; were published in a language other than English; did not use a tool to measure burnout; or examined a nonsurgical specialty.  Our analysis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)¹¹ and is outlined in the Supplemental Figure.

Results

Surgical specialties and burnout

We identified 56 studies^2-10,12-58 that focused on specific surgical specialties in relation to burnout. Supplemental Table 2^2-10,12-58 lists these studies and the surgical specialties they evaluated.

Work/life balance factors

Fifteen studies^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} examined the role of work/life balance in burnout. Table 1^{2-5,14,15,18,19,22,32,34,38,39,47,57} lists the work/life factors these studies identified as being linked to burnout. Six studies^{2,4,18,22,32,47} discussed how decreased leisure time was linked to burnout. Eleven studies^{2,4,14,15,19,22,34,38,39,42,57} associated inabilities to meet family commitments with burnout. A lack of time to spend with family and not having adequate time to raise children was more prevalent among women. Seven studies^{2,3,18,22,32,34,47} implicated increased time commitment to work as playing a role in burnout. This increased time commitment was also found to be a compounding variable for other factors, such as limited time for family and leisure.

Work hours

Fifteen studies^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,41,42,44-46,50,52,56} examined work hours and burnout. Of these, 14^{2,7,14,20,21,30,34,42,44-46,50,52,56} found a correlation between increased work hours and burnout, while only 1 study⁴¹ found no correlation between these factors. 

Medical errors

Six studies^{2,14,18,43,49,52} discussed the role of burnout in medical errors. Of these, 5^{2,14,43,49,52} reported a correlation between burnout and medical errors, while 1 study¹⁸ found no link between burnout and medical errors. The medical errors were self-reported.^14,49 They included actions that resulted in patient harm, sample collection error, and errors in medication orders and laboratory test orders.²

Continue to: Institutional and organizational factors

Eighteen studies^{3,13,14,18,20,22,23,29,30,36-38,44,45,47,54,56,57} examined how different organizational factors play a role in burnout. Four studies^3,13,20,37 discussed administrative/bureaucratic work, 4^20,45,54,57 mentioned electronic medical documentation, 2^22,30 covered duty hour regulations, 3^18,45,57 discussed mistreatment of physicians, and 6^{13,18,23,44,47,56} described the importance of workplace support in addressing burnout.

Physical and mental health factors

Eighteen studies^{6,7,14,15,17,20,26,27,29,34,43,44,48,52,54,57-59} discussed aspects of physical and mental health linked to burnout. Among these, 3^34,43,59 discussed the importance of physical health and focused on how improving physical health can reduce stress and burnout. Three studies^6,17,58 noted the prevalence of suicidal ideation in both residents and attendings experiencing prolonged burnout. Five studies^{26,29,43,44,48} described the systematic barriers that inhibit physicians from getting professional help. Two studies^7,27 reported marital status as a factor for burnout; participants who were single reported higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation. Five studies^{6,14,15,54,57} outlined how depression is associated with burnout.

Strategies to mitigate burnout

Fifteen studies^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} described strategies physicians use to cope with burnout. Table 2^{2,4,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,51,53,55-58} outlines the strategies postulated and reported by these studies as helpful in reducing burnout. Two studies^2,4 mentioned that physicians may turn to maladaptive behaviors, such as substance abuse, to cope with stress and burnout. Four studies^2,4,53,56 mentioned the importance of social support in fighting burnout and building resilience. Ten studies^{2,5,14,20,22,33,36,47,57,58} described the benefits of institutional interventions, such as what administrators can do to reduce the rate of burnout. Three studies^5,36,53 postulated different adaptive behaviors physicians can implement to reduce burnout.

Take-home points 

Research that focused on work/life balance and burnout found excessive time commitment to work is a major factor associated with poor work/life balance. Residents who worked >80 hours a week had a significantly higher burnout rate.⁵⁶ One study found that 70% of residents reported not getting enough sleep, 30% reported not having enough energy for relationships, and 39% reported that they were not eating or exercising due to time constraints.⁴ A high correlation was found between the number of hours worked per week and rates of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization. Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are aspects of burnout measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).²⁴ The excessive time commitment to work not only contributes to burnout but also prevents physicians from getting professional help. In 1 study, both residents (56%) and attendings (24%) reported that 1 of the biggest barriers to getting help for their burnout symptoms was the inability to take time off.³⁴ Research indicates that the hours worked per week and work/home conflicts were independently associated with burnout and career satisfaction.¹⁵ A decrease of weekly work hours may give physicians time to meet their responsibilities at work and home, allowing for a decrease in burnout and an increase in career satisfaction.

Increased work hours have also been found to be correlated with medical errors. One study found that those who worked 60 hours per week were significantly less likely to report any major medical errors in the previous 3 months compared with those who worked 80 hours per week.⁹ The risk for the number of medical errors has been reported as being 2-fold if surgeons are unable to combat the burnout.⁴⁹ On the other hand, a positive and supportive environment with easy access to resources to combat burnout and burnout prevention programs can reduce the frequency of medical errors, which also can reduce the risk of malpractice, thus further reducing stress and burnout.⁴³

Continue to: In response to resident complaints...

In response to resident complaints about long duty hours, a new rule has been implemented that states residents cannot work >16 hours per shift.³⁰ This rule has been found to increase quality of life and prevent burnout.³⁰

The amount of time spent on electronic medical records and documentation has been a major complaint from doctors and was identified as a factor contributing to burnout.⁴⁵ It can act as a time drain that impedes the physician from providing optimal patient care and cause additional stress. This suggests the need for organizations to find solutions to minimize this strain.

A concerning issue reported as an institutional factor and associated with burnout is mistreatment through discrimination, harassment, and physical or verbal abuse. A recent study found 45% of general and vascular surgeons reported being mistreated in some fashion.⁵⁷ The strategies reported as helpful for institutions to combat mistreatment include resilience training, improved mentorship, and implicit bias training.⁵⁷

Burnout has been positively correlated with anxiety and depression.⁶ A recent study reported that 13% of orthopedic surgery residents screened positive for depression.⁴⁴ Higher levels of burnout and depersonalization have been found to be closely associated with increased rates of suicidal ideation.¹⁷ In a study of vascular surgeons, 8% were found to report suicidal ideation, and this increased to 15% among vascular surgeons who had higher levels of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion,⁵⁸ both of which are associated with burnout. In another study, surgery residents and fellows were found to have lower levels of personal achievement and higher levels of depersonalization, depressive symptoms, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation compared to attending physicians and the general population.⁵⁴ These findings spell out the association between burnout and depressive symptoms among surgeons and emphasize the need for institutions to create a culture that supports the mental health needs of their physicians. Without access to supportive resources, residents resort to alternative methods that may be detrimental in the long run. In a recent study, 17% of residents admitted to using alcohol, including binge drinking, to cope with their stress.⁴

Burnout and depression are linked to physical health risks such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and male infertility.⁶ Exercise has been shown to be beneficial for stress reduction, which can lead to changes in metabolism, inflammation, coagulation, and autonomic function.⁶ One study of surgeons found aerobic exercise and strength training were associated with lower rates of burnout and a higher quality of life.⁵⁹

Continue to: The amount of burnout physicians...

The amount of burnout physicians experience can be determined by how they respond to adversities. Adaptive behaviors such as socializing, mindfulness, volunteering, and exercising have been found to be protective against burnout.^6,37,54 Resilience training and maintaining low stress at work can decrease burnout.³⁷ These findings highlight the need for physicians to be trained in the appropriate ways to combat their burnout symptoms.

Unfortunately, seeking help by health care professionals to improve mental health has been stigmatized, causing physicians to not seek help and instead resort to other ways to cope with their distress.^26,34 While some of these coping methods may be positive, others—such as substance abuse or stress eating—can be maladaptive, leading to a poor quality of life, and in some cases, suicide.⁵⁴ It is vital that effective mental health services become more accessible and for health care professionals to become aware of their maladaptive behaviors.³⁴

Institutions finding ways to ease the path for their physicians to seek professional help to combat burnout may mitigate its negative impact. One strategy is to embed access to mental health services within regular wellness checks. Institutions can use wellness checks to provide resources to physicians who need it. These interventions have been found to be effective because they give physicians a safe space to seek help and become aware of any factors that could lead to burnout.¹⁸ Apart from these direct attempts to combat burnout, program-sponsored social events would also promote social connectedness with colleagues and contribute to a sense of well-being that could help decrease levels of burnout and depression.¹³ Mentorship has been shown to play a crucial role in decreasing burnout among residents. One study that examined the role of mentorship reported that 55% of residents felt supported, and of these, 96% felt mentorship was critical to their success.¹⁸ The role of institutions in helping to improve the well-being of surgeons is highlighted by the finding that increasing workplace support results in psychological resilience that can mitigate burnout at its roots.²⁹

Bottom Line

Surgeons are at risk for burnout, which can impact their mental health and reduce their professional efficacy. Both institutions and surgeons themselves can take action to prevent burnout and treat burnout early when it occurs.

Related Resources

• Pahal P, Lippmann S. Building a better work/life balance. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):e1-e2. doi:10.12788/cp.0158
• Gibson R, Hategan A. Physician burnout vs depression: recognize the signs. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(10):41-42.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

CASE Detoxification and preoccupation with parasites

Mr. H, age 51, has an extensive history of alcohol and methamphetamine use. He presents to the emergency department (ED) requesting inpatient detoxification. He says he had been drinking alcohol but is unable to say how much. His blood ethanol level is 61 mg/dL (unintoxicated level: <50 mg/dL), and a urine drug screen is positive for methamphetamine; Mr. H also admits to using fentanyl. The ED team treats Mr. H’s electrolyte abnormalities, initiates thiamine supplementation, and transfers him to a unit for inpatient withdrawal management.

On the detoxification unit, Mr. H receives a total of 1,950 mg of phenobarbital for alcohol withdrawal and stabilizes on a buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance dose of 8 mg/2 mg twice daily for methamphetamine and fentanyl use. Though he was not taking any psychiatric medications prior to his arrival at the ED, Mr. H agrees to restart quetiapine—which he took when he was younger for suspected bipolar depression—50 mg/d at bedtime.

During Mr. H’s 3-day detoxification, the psychiatry team evaluates him. Mr. H says he believes he is infested with worms. He describes a prior sensation of “meth mites,” or the feeling of bugs crawling under his skin, while using methamphetamines. However, Mr. H says his current infestation feels distinctively different, and he had continued to experience these sensations during prior periods of abstinence.

The psychiatry team expresses concern over his preoccupation with infestations, disheveled appearance, poor hygiene, and healed scars from excoriation. Mr. H also reports poor sleep and appetite and was observed writing an incomprehensible “experiment” on a paper towel. Due to his bizarre behavior, delusional thoughts, and concerns about his inability to care for himself, the team admits Mr. H to the acute inpatient psychiatric unit on a voluntary commitment.

HISTORY Long-standing drug use and repeated hospital visits

Mr. H reports a history of drug use. His first documented ED visit was >5 years before his current admission. He has a family history of substance abuse and reports previously using methamphetamine, heroin, and alcohol. Mr. H was never diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, but when he was younger, there were suspicions of bipolar depression, with no contributing family psychiatric history. Though he took quetiapine at an unspecified younger age, Mr. H did not follow through with any outpatient mental health services or medications.

Mr. H first reported infestation symptoms 6 months before his current inpatient admission, when he came to the ED with complaints of bumps on his arms and legs and reported seeing bugs in his carpet. He was prescribed permethrin 5% topical cream for suspected bedbug infestation.

In the 6 months prior to his current admission, Mr. H came to the hospital >20 times for various reasons, including methamphetamine abuse, alcohol withdrawal, opiate overdose, cellulitis, wound checks, and 3 visits for hallucinations for which he requested physical evaluation and medical care. His substance use was the suspected cause of his tactile and visual hallucinations of infestation because formication—the sensation of something crawling on your skin—is commonly associated with substance use. Although the etiology of Mr. H’s hallucinations was unclear, his substance use may have either precipitated them, or, as the team suspects, masked an underlying pathology that eventually became more evident and required psychiatric treatment.

Continue to: The authors' observations

The authors’ observations

Delusional parasitosis (DP), also known as delusional infestation or Ekbom Syndrome, is a condition characterized by the fixed, false belief of an infestation without any objective evidence. This condition was previously defined in DSM-IV, but was removed from DSM-5-TR. In DSM-5-TR, DP is most closely associated with delusional disorder—somatic type (Table 1¹). It describes a patient with ≥1 month of delusions who does not meet the criteria for schizophrenia with a central theme of delusions involving bodily functions or sensations such as infestation of insects or internal parasites.¹

DP is rare, affecting approximately 1.9 per 100,000 people. There has not been consistent data supporting differences in prevalence between sexes, but there is evidence for increasing incidence with age, with a mean age of diagnosis of 61.4.^2,3 DP can be divided into 2 types based on the history and etiology of the symptoms: primary DP and secondary DP. Primary DP occurs when there is a failure to identify an organic cause for the occurrence of the symptoms. Therefore, primary DP requires an extensive investigation by a multidisciplinary team that commonly includes medical specialists for a nonpsychiatric workup. Secondary DP occurs when the patient has delusional symptoms associated with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia, depression, stroke, diabetes, vitamin B12 deficiency, or substance use.⁴

Though Mr. H initially presented to the ED, patients with DP commonly present to a primary care physician or dermatologist with the complaint of itching or feelings of insects, worms, or unclear organisms inside them. Patients with DP may often develop poor working relationships with physicians while obtaining multiple negative results. They may seek opinions from multiple specialists; however, patients typically do not consider psychiatrists as a source of help. When patients seek psychiatric care, often after a recommendation from a primary care physician or dermatologist, mental health clinicians should listen to and evaluate the patient holistically, continuing to rule out other possible etiologies.

[polldaddy:12570072]

TREATMENT Finding the right antipsychotic

In the psychiatric unit, Mr. H says he believes worms are exiting his ears, mouth, toenail, and self-inflicted scratch wounds. He believes he has been dealing with the parasites for >1 year and they are slowly draining his energy. Mr. H insists he contracted the “infection” from his home carpet, which was wet due to a flood in his house, and after he had fallen asleep following drug use. He also believes he acquired the parasites while walking barefoot along the beach and collecting rocks, and that there are multiple species living inside him, all intelligent enough to hide, making it difficult to prove their existence. He notes they vary in size, and some have red eyes.

During admission, Mr. H voices his frustration that clinicians had not found the worms he has been seeing. He continuously requests to review imaging performed during his visit and wants a multidisciplinary team to evaluate his case. He demands to test a cup with spit-up “samples,” believing the parasites would be visible under a microscope. Throughout his admission, Mr. H continues to take buprenorphine/naloxone and does not experience withdrawal symptoms. The treatment team titrates his quetiapine to 400 mg/d. Due to the lack of improvement, the team initiates olanzapine 5 mg/d at bedtime. However, Mr. H reports significant tinnitus and requests a medication change. He is started on haloperidol 5 mg twice daily.

Continue to: Mr. H begins to see improvements...

Mr. H begins to see improvements on Day 7 of taking haloperidol. He no longer brings up infestation but still acknowledges having worms inside him when directly asked. He says the worms cause him less distress than before and he is hopeful to live without discomfort. He also demonstrates an ability to conduct activities of daily living. Because Mr. H is being monitored on an acute inpatient psychiatric basis, he is deemed appropriate for discharge even though his symptoms have not yet fully resolved. After a 19-day hospital stay, Mr. H is discharged on haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d.

[polldaddy:12570074]

The authors’ observations

Mr. H asked to have his sputum examined. The “specimen sign,” also called “matchbox sign” or “Ziploc bag sign,” in which patients collect what they believe to be infected tissue or organisms in a container, is a well-studied part of DP.⁵ Such samples should be considered during initial encounters and can be examined for formal evaluation, but cautiously. Overtesting may incur a financial burden or reinforce deleterious beliefs and behaviors.

It can be difficult to identify triggers of DP. Research shows DP may arise from nonorganic and stressful life events, home floods, or contact with people infected with parasites.^6,7 Organic causes have also been found, such as patients taking multiple medications for Parkinson disease who developed delusional symptoms.⁸ Buscarino et al⁹ reported the case of a woman who started to develop symptoms of delusions and hallucinations after being on high-dose amphetamines for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Research shows that stopping the suspected medication commonly improves such symptoms.^9,10 Although methamphetamine can remain detectable in urine for up to 4 days after use and potentially a few days longer for chronic users due to circulating levels,¹¹ Mr. H’s symptoms continued for weeks after all substances of abuse should have been cleared from his system. This suggests he was experiencing a psychiatric illness and was accurate in distinguishing methamphetamine-induced from psychiatric-induced sensations. Regardless, polysubstance use has been shown to potentially increase the risk and play a role in the onset and progression of delusional illness, as seen in prior cases as well as in this case.⁹

It has been hypothesized that the pathophysiology of DP is associated with the deterioration of the striatal dopaminergic pathway, leading to an increase in extracellular dopamine levels. The striatum is responsible for most dopamine reuptake in the brain; therefore, certain drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and methyl­phenidate may precipitate symptoms of DP due to their blockade of presynaptic dopamine reuptake.¹² Additionally, conditions that decrease the functioning of striatal dopamine transporters, such as schizophrenia or depression, may be underlying causes of DP.¹³

Treatment of DP remains a topic of debate. Most current recommendations appear to be based on a small, nonrandomized placebo-controlled trial.¹⁴ The first-generation antipsychotic pimozide had been a first-line treatment for DP, but its adverse effect profile, which includes QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms, led to the exploration of second-generation antipsychotics such as olanzapine and risperidone.^15,16 There is a dearth of literature about the use of haloperidol, quetiapine, or a combination of both as treatment options for DP, though the combination of these 2 medications proved effective for Mr. H. Further research is necessary to justify changes to current treatment standards, but this finding highlights a successful symptom reduction achieved with this combination.

Continue to: Patients may experience genuine symptoms...

Patients may experience genuine symptoms despite the delusional nature of DP, and it is important for clinicians to recognize the potential burden and anxiety these individuals face. Patients may present with self-inflicted bruises, cuts, and erosions to gain access to infected areas, which may be confused with skin picking disorder. Excessive cleansing or use of irritant products can also cause skin damage, leading to other dermatological conditions that reinforce the patient’s belief that something is medically wrong. During treatment, consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain. Focus on offering patients the opportunity to express their concerns, treat them with empathy, avoid stigmatizing language such as “delusions” or “psychosis,” and refrain from contradicting them until a strong rapport has been established (Table 2¹⁷).

Symptoms of DP can persist for months to years. Patients who fully recovered experienced a median duration of 0.5 years until symptom resolution, compared to incompletely recovered patients, who took approximately 1 year.¹⁸ Primary DP has slower improvement rates compared to secondary DP, with the median onset of effects occurring at Week 1.5 and peak improvements occurring at Week 6.¹⁶

OUTCOME Continued ED visits

Unfortunately, Mr. H does not follow through with his outpatient psychiatry appointments. In the 7 months following discharge, he visits the ED 8 times for alcohol intoxication, alcohol withdrawal, and methamphetamine abuse, in addition to 2 admissions for inpatient detoxification, during which he was still receiving the same scheduled medications (haloperidol 15 mg/d and quetiapine 200 mg/d). At each of his ED visits, there was no documentation of DP symptoms, which suggests his symptoms may have resolved.

Bottom Line

Because delusional parasitosis symptoms feel real to patients, it is crucial to build rapport to recommend and successfully initiate treatment. After ruling out nonpsychiatric etiologies, consider traditional treatment with antipsychotics, and consider medications for relief of pruritus or pain.

Related Resources

• Sellman D, Phan SV, Inyang M. Bugs on her skin—but nobody else sees them. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):48,50-53.
• Campbell EH, Elston DM, Hawthorne JD, et al. Diagnosis and management of delusional parasitosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(5):1428-1434. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.012

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Haloperidol • Haldol
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Permethrin • Elimite
Phenobarbital • Solfoton, Tedral, Luminal
Pimozide • Orap
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Sertraline • Zoloft
Valproic acid • Depakote

Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are the most common complication of pregnancy and childbirth.¹ Mental health concerns are a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States, which has rising maternal mortality rates and glaring racial and socioeconomic disparities.² Inconsistent perinatal psychiatry training likely contributes to perceived discomfort of patients who are pregnant.³ This is why it is critical for all psychiatrists to understand the principles of perinatal psychiatry. Here is a brief description of 5 key principles.

1. Discuss preconception planning

Reproductive life planning should occur with all patients who are capable of becoming pregnant. This planning should include not just a risks/benefits analysis and anticipatory planning regarding medications but also a discussion of prior perinatal symptoms, pregnancy intentions and contraception (especially in light of increasingly limited access to abortion), and the bidirectional nature of pregnancy and mental health conditions.

The acronym PATH provides a framework for these conversations:

• Pregnancy Attitudes: “Do you think you might like to have (more) children at some point?”
• Timing: “If considering future parenthood, when do you think that might be?”
• How important is prevention: “How important is it to you to prevent pregnancy (until then)?”⁴

2. Focus on perinatal mental health

Discussion often centers on medication risks to the fetus at the expense of considering risks of under- or nontreatment for both members of the dyad. Undertreating perinatal mental health conditions results in dual exposures (medication and illness), and untreated illness is associated with negative effects on obstetric and neonatal outcomes and the well-being of the parent and offspring.¹

3. Resist experimentation

It is common for clinicians to reflexively switch patients who are pregnant from an effective medication to one viewed as the “safest” or “best” because it has more data. This exposes the fetus to 2 medications and the dyad to potential symptoms of the illness. Decisions about medication changes should instead be made on an individual basis considering the risks and benefits of all exposures as well as the patient’s current symptoms, previous treatment, and family history.

4. Collaborate and communicate

Despite effective interventions, many perinatal mental health conditions go untreated.¹ Normalize perinatal mental health symptoms with patients to reduce stigma and barriers to disclosure, and respect their decisions regarding perinatal medication use. Proper communication with the obstetric team ensures appropriate perinatal mental health screening and fetal monitoring (eg, possible fetal growth ultrasounds for a patient taking prazosin, or assessing for neonatal adaptation syndrome if there is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposure in utero).

5. Recognize your limitations

Our understanding of psychotropics’ teratogenicity is constantly evolving, and we must recognize when we don’t know something. In addition to medication databases such as Reprotox (https://reprotox.org/) and LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/), several perinatal psychiatry resources are available for both patients and clinicians (Table). Additionally, Postpartum Support International maintains a National Perinatal Consult Line (1-877-499-4773) as well as a list of state perinatal psychiatry access lines (https://www.postpartum.net/professionals/state-perinatal-psychiatry-access-lines/) for clinicians. The Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health (https://womensmentalhealth.org) is also a helpful resource for clinicians.

Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are the most common complication of pregnancy and childbirth.¹ Mental health concerns are a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States, which has rising maternal mortality rates and glaring racial and socioeconomic disparities.² Inconsistent perinatal psychiatry training likely contributes to perceived discomfort of patients who are pregnant.³ This is why it is critical for all psychiatrists to understand the principles of perinatal psychiatry. Here is a brief description of 5 key principles.

1. Discuss preconception planning

Reproductive life planning should occur with all patients who are capable of becoming pregnant. This planning should include not just a risks/benefits analysis and anticipatory planning regarding medications but also a discussion of prior perinatal symptoms, pregnancy intentions and contraception (especially in light of increasingly limited access to abortion), and the bidirectional nature of pregnancy and mental health conditions.

The acronym PATH provides a framework for these conversations:

• Pregnancy Attitudes: “Do you think you might like to have (more) children at some point?”
• Timing: “If considering future parenthood, when do you think that might be?”
• How important is prevention: “How important is it to you to prevent pregnancy (until then)?”⁴

2. Focus on perinatal mental health

Discussion often centers on medication risks to the fetus at the expense of considering risks of under- or nontreatment for both members of the dyad. Undertreating perinatal mental health conditions results in dual exposures (medication and illness), and untreated illness is associated with negative effects on obstetric and neonatal outcomes and the well-being of the parent and offspring.¹

3. Resist experimentation

It is common for clinicians to reflexively switch patients who are pregnant from an effective medication to one viewed as the “safest” or “best” because it has more data. This exposes the fetus to 2 medications and the dyad to potential symptoms of the illness. Decisions about medication changes should instead be made on an individual basis considering the risks and benefits of all exposures as well as the patient’s current symptoms, previous treatment, and family history.

4. Collaborate and communicate

Despite effective interventions, many perinatal mental health conditions go untreated.¹ Normalize perinatal mental health symptoms with patients to reduce stigma and barriers to disclosure, and respect their decisions regarding perinatal medication use. Proper communication with the obstetric team ensures appropriate perinatal mental health screening and fetal monitoring (eg, possible fetal growth ultrasounds for a patient taking prazosin, or assessing for neonatal adaptation syndrome if there is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposure in utero).

5. Recognize your limitations

Our understanding of psychotropics’ teratogenicity is constantly evolving, and we must recognize when we don’t know something. In addition to medication databases such as Reprotox (https://reprotox.org/) and LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/), several perinatal psychiatry resources are available for both patients and clinicians (Table). Additionally, Postpartum Support International maintains a National Perinatal Consult Line (1-877-499-4773) as well as a list of state perinatal psychiatry access lines (https://www.postpartum.net/professionals/state-perinatal-psychiatry-access-lines/) for clinicians. The Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health (https://womensmentalhealth.org) is also a helpful resource for clinicians.

Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders are the most common complication of pregnancy and childbirth.¹ Mental health concerns are a leading cause of maternal mortality in the United States, which has rising maternal mortality rates and glaring racial and socioeconomic disparities.² Inconsistent perinatal psychiatry training likely contributes to perceived discomfort of patients who are pregnant.³ This is why it is critical for all psychiatrists to understand the principles of perinatal psychiatry. Here is a brief description of 5 key principles.

1. Discuss preconception planning

Reproductive life planning should occur with all patients who are capable of becoming pregnant. This planning should include not just a risks/benefits analysis and anticipatory planning regarding medications but also a discussion of prior perinatal symptoms, pregnancy intentions and contraception (especially in light of increasingly limited access to abortion), and the bidirectional nature of pregnancy and mental health conditions.

The acronym PATH provides a framework for these conversations:

• Pregnancy Attitudes: “Do you think you might like to have (more) children at some point?”
• Timing: “If considering future parenthood, when do you think that might be?”
• How important is prevention: “How important is it to you to prevent pregnancy (until then)?”⁴

2. Focus on perinatal mental health

Discussion often centers on medication risks to the fetus at the expense of considering risks of under- or nontreatment for both members of the dyad. Undertreating perinatal mental health conditions results in dual exposures (medication and illness), and untreated illness is associated with negative effects on obstetric and neonatal outcomes and the well-being of the parent and offspring.¹

3. Resist experimentation

It is common for clinicians to reflexively switch patients who are pregnant from an effective medication to one viewed as the “safest” or “best” because it has more data. This exposes the fetus to 2 medications and the dyad to potential symptoms of the illness. Decisions about medication changes should instead be made on an individual basis considering the risks and benefits of all exposures as well as the patient’s current symptoms, previous treatment, and family history.

4. Collaborate and communicate

Despite effective interventions, many perinatal mental health conditions go untreated.¹ Normalize perinatal mental health symptoms with patients to reduce stigma and barriers to disclosure, and respect their decisions regarding perinatal medication use. Proper communication with the obstetric team ensures appropriate perinatal mental health screening and fetal monitoring (eg, possible fetal growth ultrasounds for a patient taking prazosin, or assessing for neonatal adaptation syndrome if there is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor exposure in utero).

5. Recognize your limitations

Our understanding of psychotropics’ teratogenicity is constantly evolving, and we must recognize when we don’t know something. In addition to medication databases such as Reprotox (https://reprotox.org/) and LactMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK501922/), several perinatal psychiatry resources are available for both patients and clinicians (Table). Additionally, Postpartum Support International maintains a National Perinatal Consult Line (1-877-499-4773) as well as a list of state perinatal psychiatry access lines (https://www.postpartum.net/professionals/state-perinatal-psychiatry-access-lines/) for clinicians. The Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Women’s Mental Health (https://womensmentalhealth.org) is also a helpful resource for clinicians.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with impaired psychosocial functioning, reduced quality of life, increased use of health care services, and excess mortality.¹ Unfortunately, this disorder is often underrecognized and underdiagnosed, and patients with BPD may not receive an accurate diagnosis for years after first seeking treatment.¹ Problems in diagnosing BPD include:

Stigma. Some patients may view the term “borderline” as stigmatizing, as if we are calling these patients borderline human beings. One of the symptoms of BPD is a “markedly and persistently unstable self-image.”² Such patients do not need a stigmatizing label to worsen their self-image.

Terminology. The word borderline may also imply relatively mild psychiatric symptoms. However, “borderline personality disorder” does not refer to a mild personality disorder. DSM-5 describes potential BPD symptoms as “intense,” “marked,” or “severe,” and 1 of the symptoms is suicidal behavior.²

Symptoms. To meet the criteria for a BPD diagnosis, a patient must exhibit ≥5 of 9 severe symptoms²:

• frantic efforts to avoid abandonment
• unstable and intense interpersonal relationships
• unstable self-image
• impulsivity in ≥2 areas that are potentially self-damaging
• suicidal behavior
• affective instability
• chronic feelings of emptiness
• inappropriate anger
• transient paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms.

Asking about all 9 of these criteria and their severity is not part of a routine psychiatric evaluation. A patient might not volunteer any of this information because they are concerned about potential stigma. Additionally, perhaps most of the general population has had a “BPD-like” symptom at least once during their lives. This symptom might not have been severe enough to qualify as a true BPD symptom. Clinicians might have difficulty discerning BPD-like symptoms from true BPD symptoms.

Comorbidities. Many patients with BPD also have a comorbid mood disorder or substance use disorder.^1,3 Clinicians might focus on a comorbid diagnosis and not recognize BPD.

Stress. BPD symptoms may become more severe when the patient faces a stressful situation. The BPD symptoms might seem more severe than the stress would warrant.² However, clinicians might blame the BPD symptoms solely on stress and not acknowledge the underlying BPD diagnosis.

Awareness of these factors can help clinicians keep BPD in the differential diagnosis when conducting a psychiatric evaluation, thus reducing the chances of overlooking this serious disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with impaired psychosocial functioning, reduced quality of life, increased use of health care services, and excess mortality.¹ Unfortunately, this disorder is often underrecognized and underdiagnosed, and patients with BPD may not receive an accurate diagnosis for years after first seeking treatment.¹ Problems in diagnosing BPD include:

Stigma. Some patients may view the term “borderline” as stigmatizing, as if we are calling these patients borderline human beings. One of the symptoms of BPD is a “markedly and persistently unstable self-image.”² Such patients do not need a stigmatizing label to worsen their self-image.

Terminology. The word borderline may also imply relatively mild psychiatric symptoms. However, “borderline personality disorder” does not refer to a mild personality disorder. DSM-5 describes potential BPD symptoms as “intense,” “marked,” or “severe,” and 1 of the symptoms is suicidal behavior.²

Symptoms. To meet the criteria for a BPD diagnosis, a patient must exhibit ≥5 of 9 severe symptoms²:

• frantic efforts to avoid abandonment
• unstable and intense interpersonal relationships
• unstable self-image
• impulsivity in ≥2 areas that are potentially self-damaging
• suicidal behavior
• affective instability
• chronic feelings of emptiness
• inappropriate anger
• transient paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms.

Asking about all 9 of these criteria and their severity is not part of a routine psychiatric evaluation. A patient might not volunteer any of this information because they are concerned about potential stigma. Additionally, perhaps most of the general population has had a “BPD-like” symptom at least once during their lives. This symptom might not have been severe enough to qualify as a true BPD symptom. Clinicians might have difficulty discerning BPD-like symptoms from true BPD symptoms.

Comorbidities. Many patients with BPD also have a comorbid mood disorder or substance use disorder.^1,3 Clinicians might focus on a comorbid diagnosis and not recognize BPD.

Stress. BPD symptoms may become more severe when the patient faces a stressful situation. The BPD symptoms might seem more severe than the stress would warrant.² However, clinicians might blame the BPD symptoms solely on stress and not acknowledge the underlying BPD diagnosis.

Awareness of these factors can help clinicians keep BPD in the differential diagnosis when conducting a psychiatric evaluation, thus reducing the chances of overlooking this serious disorder.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with impaired psychosocial functioning, reduced quality of life, increased use of health care services, and excess mortality.¹ Unfortunately, this disorder is often underrecognized and underdiagnosed, and patients with BPD may not receive an accurate diagnosis for years after first seeking treatment.¹ Problems in diagnosing BPD include:

Stigma. Some patients may view the term “borderline” as stigmatizing, as if we are calling these patients borderline human beings. One of the symptoms of BPD is a “markedly and persistently unstable self-image.”² Such patients do not need a stigmatizing label to worsen their self-image.

Terminology. The word borderline may also imply relatively mild psychiatric symptoms. However, “borderline personality disorder” does not refer to a mild personality disorder. DSM-5 describes potential BPD symptoms as “intense,” “marked,” or “severe,” and 1 of the symptoms is suicidal behavior.²

Symptoms. To meet the criteria for a BPD diagnosis, a patient must exhibit ≥5 of 9 severe symptoms²:

• frantic efforts to avoid abandonment
• unstable and intense interpersonal relationships
• unstable self-image
• impulsivity in ≥2 areas that are potentially self-damaging
• suicidal behavior
• affective instability
• chronic feelings of emptiness
• inappropriate anger
• transient paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms.

Asking about all 9 of these criteria and their severity is not part of a routine psychiatric evaluation. A patient might not volunteer any of this information because they are concerned about potential stigma. Additionally, perhaps most of the general population has had a “BPD-like” symptom at least once during their lives. This symptom might not have been severe enough to qualify as a true BPD symptom. Clinicians might have difficulty discerning BPD-like symptoms from true BPD symptoms.

Comorbidities. Many patients with BPD also have a comorbid mood disorder or substance use disorder.^1,3 Clinicians might focus on a comorbid diagnosis and not recognize BPD.

Stress. BPD symptoms may become more severe when the patient faces a stressful situation. The BPD symptoms might seem more severe than the stress would warrant.² However, clinicians might blame the BPD symptoms solely on stress and not acknowledge the underlying BPD diagnosis.

Awareness of these factors can help clinicians keep BPD in the differential diagnosis when conducting a psychiatric evaluation, thus reducing the chances of overlooking this serious disorder.

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

We appreciate the important review by Gluck et al (“Managing patients with comorbid opioid and alcohol use disorders,” Current Psychiatry, February 2023, p. 20-28, doi:10.12788/cp.0327) addressing the common co-occurrence of opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) among hospitalized patients, and we offer a friendly amendment to the algorithm they presented. Early in their algorithm, the authors suggest asking patients whether they want pharmacologic treatment for OUD. We recommend that if the patient affirms interest in OUD medication, the next question should be whether the patient prefers to be opioid-free. If the patient says “yes,” extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) is offered. If the patient answers “no,” they can be offered buprenorphine or methadone.

XR-NTX should be considered an equal OUD treatment alternative to buprenorphine-naloxone, especially for patients who prefer an opioid-free option.^1,2 It has the added advantage of being FDA-approved for both AUD and OUD.

One obstacle to the success of XR-NTX is the induction period. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network X:BOT trial found that once the induction hurdle was surmounted, XR-NTX and buprenorphine were equally effective in a population of approximately 80% heroin users and two-thirds injection drug users.² Patient variables that predict successful induction include young age, baseline preference for XR-NTX, fewer drug complications, and fewer family/social complications.³ If the length of the induction (usually 7 to 10 days) is a deterrent, a study supported the feasibility of a 5-day outpatient XR-NTX induction.⁴ Further research is needed to improve successful induction for XR-NTX.

Ashmeer Ogbuchi, MD
Karen Drexler, MD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Tanum L, Solli KK, Latif Z, et al. Effectiveness of injectable extended-release naltrexone vs daily buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid dependence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(12):1197-1205. doi:10.1001/ jamapsychiatry.2017.3206

2. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

3. Murphy SM, Jeng PJ, McCollister KE, et al. Cost‐effectiveness implications of increasing the efficiency of the extended‐release naltrexone induction process for the treatment of opioid use disorder: a secondary analysis. Addiction. 2021;116(12)3444-3453. doi:10.1111/add.15531

4. Sibai M, Mishlen K, Nunes EV, et al. A week-long outpatient induction onto XR-naltrexone in patients with opioid use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2020;46(3):289-296. doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1700265

Continue to: The authors respond

We appreciate Drs. Ogbuchi and Drexler for their thoughtful attention to our review. They proposed amending our original algorithm, recommending that XR-NTX be considered as another first-line option for patients with OUD. We agree with this suggestion, particularly for inpatients. However, we have some reservations about applying this suggestion to outpatient treatment. Though research evidence from Lee et al¹ indicates that once initiation is completed, both medications are equally safe and effective, the initial attrition rate in the XR-NTX group was much higher (28% vs 6%, P < .0001), which suggests lower acceptability/tolerability compared with buprenorphine. Notably, the initiation of both medications in Lee et al¹ was done in an inpatient setting. Moreover, although some medications are endorsed as “first-line,” the actual utilization rate is often influenced by many factors, including the ease of treatment initiation. Wakeman et al² found the most common treatment modality received by patients with OUD was nonintensive behavioral health (59.5%), followed by inpatient withdrawal management and residential treatment (15.2%). Among all patients in the Wakeman study,² only 12.5% received buprenorphine or methadone, and 2.4% received naltrexone.

Data from our clinic corroborate this trend. Currently, in our clinic approximately 300 patients with OUD are receiving medications, including approximately 250 on buprenorphine (including 5 to 10 on the long-acting injectable formulation), 50 on methadone, and only 1 or 2 on XR-NTX. Though this disparity may reflect bias in our clinicians’ prescribing practices, in the past few years we have had many unsuccessful attempts at initiating XR-NTX. To our disappointment, a theoretically excellent medication has not translated clinically. The recent surge in fentanyl use further complicates XR-NTX initiation for OUD, because the length of induction may be longer.

In conclusion, we agree that XR-NTX is a potential treatment option for patients with OUD, but clinicians should be cognizant of the potential barriers; inform patients of the advantages, expectations, and challenges; and respect patients’ informed decisions.

Rachel Gluck, MD
Karen Hochman, MD
Yi-lang Tang, MD, PhD
Atlanta, Georgia

References

1. Lee JD, Nunes EV Jr, Novo P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus buprenorphine-naloxone for opioid relapse prevention (X:BOT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10118):309-318. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32812-x

2. Wakeman SE, Larochelle MR, Ameli O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1920622. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622

The patient’s toenail thickening appeared consistent with possible onychomycosis—but in addition, there was a marked inflammatory and vesicular eruption consistent with an allergic contact dermatitis.

TTO, also known as melaleuca oil, is a popular product used to treat many disorders including alopecia, seborrheic dermatitis, and onychomycosis.¹ Unfortunately, it is a complex compound, and the rate of positive reactions to patch testing ranges from 0.1% to 3.5%.²

There are 2 types of contact dermatitis: irritant and allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results from an irritating or relatively caustic substance causing direct damage and inflammation to the skin. In allergic contact dermatitis, as occurred here, there is sensitization to a substance that causes a type IV delayed cell-mediated immune response. Although radioallergosorbent blood testing will usually show immunoglobulin E antibodies to the inciting substance, patch testing is more specific and will show a reaction to the imputed substance on direct skin application. This usually is performed as a panel of antigens tested at the same time.

The mainstay of treatment is to identify, stop use of, and then avoid the sensitizing substance. Topical steroids (triamcinolone 0.1% ointment or clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily) are helpful in most cases. If the condition is severe or does not respond to initial therapy, systemic steroids (prednisone 40 mg/d for 5 days for most cases or a 2- to 3-week taper for Rhus dermatitis [eg, poison ivy]) are often effective.³

This patient was instructed to stop using TTO and counseled to avoid it in the future. She was told that her nails might fall off due to the inflammation, which might cure her onychomycosis, and that it takes 12 to 18 months to grow new toenails. She was advised to return for evaluation if the new nails developed any abnormalities or if her onychomycosis recurred. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d for 90 days is usually a safe and effective therapy.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient’s toenail thickening appeared consistent with possible onychomycosis—but in addition, there was a marked inflammatory and vesicular eruption consistent with an allergic contact dermatitis.

TTO, also known as melaleuca oil, is a popular product used to treat many disorders including alopecia, seborrheic dermatitis, and onychomycosis.¹ Unfortunately, it is a complex compound, and the rate of positive reactions to patch testing ranges from 0.1% to 3.5%.²

There are 2 types of contact dermatitis: irritant and allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results from an irritating or relatively caustic substance causing direct damage and inflammation to the skin. In allergic contact dermatitis, as occurred here, there is sensitization to a substance that causes a type IV delayed cell-mediated immune response. Although radioallergosorbent blood testing will usually show immunoglobulin E antibodies to the inciting substance, patch testing is more specific and will show a reaction to the imputed substance on direct skin application. This usually is performed as a panel of antigens tested at the same time.

The mainstay of treatment is to identify, stop use of, and then avoid the sensitizing substance. Topical steroids (triamcinolone 0.1% ointment or clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily) are helpful in most cases. If the condition is severe or does not respond to initial therapy, systemic steroids (prednisone 40 mg/d for 5 days for most cases or a 2- to 3-week taper for Rhus dermatitis [eg, poison ivy]) are often effective.³

This patient was instructed to stop using TTO and counseled to avoid it in the future. She was told that her nails might fall off due to the inflammation, which might cure her onychomycosis, and that it takes 12 to 18 months to grow new toenails. She was advised to return for evaluation if the new nails developed any abnormalities or if her onychomycosis recurred. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d for 90 days is usually a safe and effective therapy.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

The patient’s toenail thickening appeared consistent with possible onychomycosis—but in addition, there was a marked inflammatory and vesicular eruption consistent with an allergic contact dermatitis.

TTO, also known as melaleuca oil, is a popular product used to treat many disorders including alopecia, seborrheic dermatitis, and onychomycosis.¹ Unfortunately, it is a complex compound, and the rate of positive reactions to patch testing ranges from 0.1% to 3.5%.²

There are 2 types of contact dermatitis: irritant and allergic. Irritant contact dermatitis results from an irritating or relatively caustic substance causing direct damage and inflammation to the skin. In allergic contact dermatitis, as occurred here, there is sensitization to a substance that causes a type IV delayed cell-mediated immune response. Although radioallergosorbent blood testing will usually show immunoglobulin E antibodies to the inciting substance, patch testing is more specific and will show a reaction to the imputed substance on direct skin application. This usually is performed as a panel of antigens tested at the same time.

The mainstay of treatment is to identify, stop use of, and then avoid the sensitizing substance. Topical steroids (triamcinolone 0.1% ointment or clobetasol 0.05% ointment twice daily) are helpful in most cases. If the condition is severe or does not respond to initial therapy, systemic steroids (prednisone 40 mg/d for 5 days for most cases or a 2- to 3-week taper for Rhus dermatitis [eg, poison ivy]) are often effective.³

This patient was instructed to stop using TTO and counseled to avoid it in the future. She was told that her nails might fall off due to the inflammation, which might cure her onychomycosis, and that it takes 12 to 18 months to grow new toenails. She was advised to return for evaluation if the new nails developed any abnormalities or if her onychomycosis recurred. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d for 90 days is usually a safe and effective therapy.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.