Article

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues¹ in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.

In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.

However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.

Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.

I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.

Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
[email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.

A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.

This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.

Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys

The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.^1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.

Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.^3,4

These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.⁵

In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.

The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support

There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.⁶ Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.⁶

We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,⁷ yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.

Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care

While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.⁸ During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.

Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

This issue of the Journal of Clinical Outcomes (JCOM) debuts a new cover design that brings forward the articles and features in each issue. Although the Journal’s cover has a new look, JCOM’s goals remain the same—improving care by disseminating evidence of quality improvement in health care and sharing access to the medical literature with our readers. We continue our mission to promote the best medical practice by providing clinicians with updates and communicating advances that lead to measurable improvement in health care delivery, quality, and outcomes.

As we continue the work of improving health care quality, knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the literature remain. These unmet needs are evident throughout all phases of health care delivery. Moreover, the Institutes of Medicine report that centered on efforts to build a safer health care environment by redesigning health care processes remains salient.¹ The journey to continuous improvement in health care, where we achieve threshold change in the quality of each process and across the entire health care system, requires collective effort. Such efforts include establishing clear metrics and measurements for improvement goals throughout the patient’s journey through diagnosis, treatment, transitions of care, and disease management.^2,3 To address evidence and knowledge gaps in the literature, JCOM publishes reports of original studies and quality improvement projects as well as reviews, providing its 30,000 readers with new evidence to implement in daily practice. We welcome submissions of original research reports, reports of quality improvement projects that follow the SQUIRE 2.0 standards,⁴ and perspectives on developments and innovations in health care delivery.

The next chapter in health care delivery improvement will encompass value-based care.⁵ This new era of clinical outcomes management will dictate the metrics and outcomes reporting⁶ and how to plan future investments. The value-based phase will increase innovation and shape policies that advance population health, transforming every step in the care delivery journey.⁷ The next phase in health care delivery will also create a viable financial structure while implementing effective performance measures for optimal outcomes through patient-centered care and optimization of cost and care strategies. In light of health care’s evolution toward a value-based model, JCOM welcomes submissions of manuscripts that explore themes central to this model, including patient-centered care, implementation of best practices, system design, safety, cost-effectiveness, and the balance between cost optimization and quality. For JCOM’s authors and readers, our editorial team remains commited to the highest standards in timely publishing to support our community through our collective expertise and dedication to quality improvement.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; [email protected]

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To examine whether implementation of a geriatric trauma clinical pathway is associated with reduced rates of delirium in older adults with traumatic injury.

Design: Retrospective case-control study of electronic health records.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and did not undergo an operation. A Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary Stanford Quality Pathways team and formally launched on November 1, 2018. The clinical pathway was designed to incorporate geriatric best practices, which included order sets (eg, age-appropriate nonpharmacological interventions and pharmacological dosages), guidelines (eg, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health systems 4M framework), automated consultations (comprehensive geriatric assessment), and escalation pathways executed by a multidisciplinary team (eg, pain, bowel, and sleep regulation). The clinical pathway began with admission to the emergency department (ED) (ie, automatic trigger of geriatric trauma care admission order set), daily multidisciplinary team meetings during acute hospitalization, and a transitional care team consultation for postdischarge follow-up or home visit.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was delirium as determined by a positive Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) score or a diagnosis of delirium by the clinical team. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Process measures for pathway compliance (eg, achieving adequate pain control, early mobilization, advance care planning) were assessed. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent the Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway intervention (postimplementation group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (baseline pre-implementation group).

Main results: Of the 859 eligible patients, 712 were included in the analysis (442 [62.1%] in the baseline pre-implementation group and 270 [37.9%] in the postimplementation group); mean (SD) age was 81.4 (9.1) years, and 394 (55.3%) were women. The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls being the most common cause of injury (247 [55.9%] in the baseline group vs 162 [60.0%] in the postimplementation group; P = .43). Injuries as measured by Injury Severity Score (ISS) were minor or moderate in both groups (261 [59.0%] in baseline group vs 168 [62.2%] in postimplementation group; P = .87). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for delirium in the postimplementation group was lower compared to the baseline pre-implementation group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80; P < .001). Measures of advance care planning in the postimplementation group improved, including more frequent goals-of-care documentation (53.7% in postimplementation group vs 16.7% in baseline group; P < .001) and a shortened time to first goals-of-care discussion upon presenting to the ED (36 hours in postimplementation group vs 50 hours in baseline group; P = .03).

Conclusion: Implementation of a multidisciplinary geriatric trauma clinical pathway for older adults with traumatic injury at a single level I trauma center was associated with reduced rates of delirium.

Study 2 Overview (Bryant et al)

Objective: To determine whether an interdisciplinary care pathway for frail trauma patients can improve in-hospital mortality, complications, and 30-day readmissions.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of frail patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients were persons aged 65 years or older who were admitted to the trauma service and survived more than 24 hours; admitted to and discharged from the trauma unit; and determined to be pre-frail or frail by a geriatrician’s assessment. A Frailty Identification and Care Pathway designed to reduce delirium and complications in frail older trauma patients was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in 2016. The standardized evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway included utilization of order sets and interventions for delirium prevention, early ambulation, bowel and pain regimens, nutrition and physical therapy consults, medication management, care-goal setting, and geriatric assessments.

Main outcome measures: The main outcomes were delirium as determined by a positive CAM score, major complications as defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Project, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day hospital readmission. Outcome measures were compared between patients who underwent Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention (postintervention group) vs patients who were treated prior to pathway implementation (pre-intervention group).

Main results: A total of 269 frail patients were included in the analysis (125 in pre-intervention group vs 144 in postintervention group). Patient demographic and admission characteristics were similar between the 2 groups: mean age was 83.5 (7.1) years, 60.6% were women, and median ISS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-14). The injury mechanism was similar between groups, with falls accounting for 92.8% and 86.1% of injuries in the pre-intervention and postintervention groups, respectively (P = .07). In univariate analysis, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway intervention was associated with a significant reduction in delirium (12.5% vs 21.6%, P = .04) and 30-day hospital readmission (2.7% vs 9.6%, P = .01) compared to patients in the pre-intervention group. However, rates of major complications (28.5% vs 28.0%, P = 0.93) and in-hospital mortality (4.2% vs 7.2%, P = .28) were similar between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race, ISS), patients in the postintervention group had lower delirium (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.88; P = .02) and 30-day hospital readmission (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .02) rates compared to those in the pre-intervention group.

Conclusion: Implementation of an interdisciplinary care protocol for frail geriatric trauma patients significantly decreased their risks for in-hospital delirium and 30-day hospital readmission.

Commentary

Traumatic injuries in older adults are associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, with falls and motor vehicle accidents accounting for a majority of these injuries. Astoundingly, up to one-third of this vulnerable population presenting to hospitals with an ISS greater than 15 may die during hospitalization.¹ As a result, a large number of studies and clinical trials have focused on interventions that are designed to reduce fall risks, and hence reduce adverse consequences of traumatic injuries that may arise after falls.² However, this emphasis on falls prevention has overshadowed a need to develop effective geriatric-centered clinical interventions that aim to improve outcomes in older adults who present to hospitals with traumatic injuries. Furthermore, frailty—a geriatric syndrome indicative of an increased state of vulnerability and predictive of adverse outcomes such as delirium—is highly prevalent in older patients with traumatic injury.³ Thus, there is an urgent need to develop novel, hospital-based, traumatic injury–targeting strategies that incorporate a thoughtful redesign of the care framework that includes evidence-based interventions for geriatric syndromes such as delirium and frailty.

The study reported by Park et al (Study 1) represents the latest effort to evaluate inpatient management strategies designed to improve outcomes in hospitalized older adults who have sustained traumatic injury. Through the implementation of a novel multidisciplinary Geriatric Trauma Care Pathway that incorporates geriatric best practices, this intervention was found to be associated with a 46% lower risk of in-hospital delirium. Because of the inclusion of all age-eligible patients across all strata of traumatic injuries, rather than preselecting for those at the highest risk for poor clinical outcomes, the benefits of this intervention extend to those with minor or moderate injury severity. Furthermore, the improvement in delirium (ie, the primary outcome) is particularly meaningful given that delirium is one of the most common hospital-associated complications that increase hospital LOS, discharge to an institution, and mortality in older adults. Finally, the study’s observed reduced time to a first goals-of-care discussion and increased frequency of goals-of-care documentation after intervention should not be overlooked. The improvements in these 2 process measures are highly significant given that advanced care planning, an intervention that helps to align patients’ values, goals, and treatments, is completed at substantially lower rates in older adults in the acute hospital setting.⁴

Similarly, in an earlier published study, Bryant and colleagues (Study 2) also show that a geriatric-focused interdisciplinary trauma care pathway is associated with delirium risk reduction in hospitalized older trauma patients. Much like Study 1, the Frailty Identification and Care Pathway utilized in Study 2 is an evidence-based interdisciplinary care pathway that includes the use of geriatric assessments, order sets, and geriatric best practices. Moreover, its exclusive inclusion of pre-frail and frail older patients (ie, those at higher risk for poor outcomes) with moderate injury severity (median ISS of 10 [IQR, 9-14]) suggests that this type of care pathway benefits hospitalized older trauma patients, who are particularly vulnerable to adverse complications such as delirium. Moreover, the successful utilization of the FRAIL questionnaire, a validated frailty screening tool, by surgical residents in the ED to initiate this care pathway demonstrates the feasibility of its use in expediting frailty screening in older patients in trauma care.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Findings from the 2 studies discussed in this review indicate that implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways predicated on evidence-based geriatric principles and best practices is a promising approach to reduce delirium in hospitalized older trauma patients. These studies have helped to lay the groundwork in outlining the roadmaps (eg, processes and infrastructures) needed to create such clinical pathways. These key elements include: (1) integration of a multidisciplinary committee (eg, representation from trauma, emergency, and geriatric medicine, nursing, physical and occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work) in pathway design and implementation; (2) adaption of evidence-based geriatric best practices (eg, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Age-Friendly Health System 4M framework [medication, mentation, mobility, what matters]) to prioritize interventions and to design a pathway that incorporates these features; (3) incorporation of comprehensive geriatric assessment by interdisciplinary providers; (4) utilization of validated clinical instruments to assess physical and cognitive functions, frailty, delirium, and social determinants of health; (5) modification of electronic health record systems to encompass order sets that incorporate evidence-based, nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage symptoms (eg, delirium, pain, bowel movement, sleep, immobility, polypharmacy) essential to quality geriatric care; and (6) integration of patient and caregiver preferences via goals-of-care discussions and corresponding documentation and communication of these goals.

Additionally, these 2 studies imparted some strategies that may facilitate the implementation of interdisciplinary clinical care pathways in trauma care. Examples of such facilitators include: (1) collaboration with champions within each specialty to reinforce education and buy-in; (2) creation of automatically triggered order sets upon patient presentation to the ED that unites distinct features of clinical pathways; (3) adaption and reorganization of existing hospital infrastructures and resources to meet the needs of clinical pathways implementation (eg, utilizing information technology resources to develop electronic health record order sets; using quality department to develop clinical pathway guidelines and electronic outcome dashboards); and (4) development of individualized patient and caregiver education materials based on care needs (eg, principles of delirium prevention and preservation of mobility during hospitalization) to prepare and engage these stakeholders in patient care and recovery.

Practice Points

• A geriatric interdisciplinary care model can be effectively applied to the management of acute trauma in older patients.
• Interdisciplinary clinical pathways should incorporate geriatric best practices and guidelines and age-appropriate order sets to prioritize and integrate care.

—Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

Study 1 Overview (Cortés et al)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan with those of trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and taxane.

Design: Phase 3, multicenter, open-label randomized trial conducted at 169 centers and 15 countries.

Setting and participants: Eligible patients had to have unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer that had progressed during or after treatment with trastuzumab and a taxane or had disease that progressed within 6 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment involving trastuzumab or taxane. Patients with stable or previously treated brain metastases were eligible. Patients were not eligible for the study if they had symptomatic brain metastases, prior exposure to trastuzumab emtansine, or a history of interstitial lung disease.

Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or trastuzumab emtansine 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified according to hormone-receptor status, prior treatment with epratuzumab, and the presence or absence of visceral disease.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival as determined by an independent central review. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response, and safety.

Main results: A total of 524 patients were enrolled in the study, with 261 patients randomized to trastuzumab deruxtecan and 263 patients randomized to trastuzumab emtansine. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, and 60% of patients in both groups received prior epratuzumab therapy. Stable brain metastases were present in around 20% of patients in each group, and 70% of patients in each group had visceral disease. The median duration of follow-up was 16.2 months with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 15.3 months with trastuzumab emtansine.

The median progression-free survival was not reached in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and was 6.8 months in the trastuzumab emtansine group (95% CI, 5.6-8.2). At 12 months the percentage of patients alive without disease progression was significantly larger in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.22-0.37; P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed a benefit in progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan across all subgroups.

At the time of this analysis, the percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 94% with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 85.9% with trastuzumab emtansine. The response rates were significantly higher with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine (79.7% vs 34.2%). A complete response was seen in 16% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, compared with 8.7% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. The disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group (96.6% vs 76.8%).

Serious adverse events were reported in 19% of patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% of patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, with 13.6% of patients discontinuing trastuzumab deruxtecan. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 52% of patients treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan and 48% of patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine. The most commonly reported adverse event with trastuzumab deruxtecan was nausea/vomiting and fatigue. These adverse events were seen more in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with the trastuzumab emtansine group. No drug-related grade 5 adverse events were reported.

In the trastuzumab deruxtecan group, 10.5% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan developed interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Seven patients had grade 1 events, 18 patients had grade 2 events, and 2 patients had grade 3 events. No grade 4 or 5 events were noted in either treatment group. The median time to onset of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis in those receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan was 168 days (range, 33-507). Discontinuation of therapy due to interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 8% of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan and 1% of patients receiving trastuzumab emtansine.

Conclusion: Trastuzumab deruxtecan significantly decreases the risk of disease progression or death compared to trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on prior trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy.

Study 2 Overview (Modi et al)

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with unresectable or metastatic breast cancer with low levels of HER2 expression.

Design: This was a randomized, 2-group, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Setting and participants: The trial was designed with a planned enrollment of 480 patients with hormone receptor–positive disease and 60 patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to HER2 status (immunohistochemical [IHC] 1+ vs IHC 2+/in situ hybridization [ISH] negative), number of prior lines of therapy, and hormone-receptor status. IHC scores for HER2 expression were determined through central testing. Specimens that had HER2 IHC scores of 2+ were reflexed to ISH. Specimens were considered HER2-low-expressing if they had an IHC score of 1+ or if they had an IHC score of 2+ and were ISH negative.

Eligible patients had to have received chemotherapy for metastatic disease or had disease recurrence during or within 6 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with hormone receptor–positive disease must have had at least 1 line of endocrine therapy. Patients were eligible if they had stable brain metastases. Patients with interstitial lung disease were excluded.

Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan 5.4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, or nab-paclitaxel).

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in patients with hormone receptor–positive disease. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival among all patients, overall survival in hormone receptor–positive patients, and overall survival in all patients. Additional secondary endpoints included objective response rates, duration of response, and efficacy in hormone receptor–negative patients.

Main results: A total of 373 patients were assigned to the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 184 patients were assigned to the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 88% of patients in each cohort were hormone receptor–positive. In the physician’s choice chemotherapy group, 51% received eribulin, 20% received capecitabine, 10% received nab-paclitaxel, 10% received gemcitabine, and 8% received paclitaxel. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The median duration of follow-up was 18.4 months.

The median progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.4-0.64). Subgroup analyses revealed a benefit across all subgroups. The median progression-free survival among patients with a HER2 IHC score of 1+ and those with a HER2 IHC score of 2+/negative ISH were identical. In patients who received a prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, the median progression-free survival was also 10 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group. In those who were CDK 4/6- naïve, the progression-free survival was 11.7 months. The progression-free survival in all patients was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89).

The median overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort was 23.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group compared with 17.5 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.86; P = .003). The median overall survival in the entire population was 23.4 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group vs 16.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. In the hormone receptor–negative cohort, the median overall survival was 18.2 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 8.3 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Complete responses were seen in 3.6% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 0.6% and the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. The median duration of response was 10.7 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 6.8 months in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group.

Incidence of serious adverse events was 27% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 25% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 52% of the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 67% of the physician’s choice chemotherapy group. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 16% in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18% in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group; 14 patients in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5 patients in the physician’s choice chemotherapy group had an adverse event that was associated with death. Death due to pneumonitis in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group occurred in 2 patients. Drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 45 patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan. The majority of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. However, 3 patients had grade 5 interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis.

Conclusion: Treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to physician’s choice chemotherapy in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer.

Commentary

Trastuzumab deruxtecan is an antibody drug conjugate that consists of a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody linked to a topoisomerase 1 inhibitor. This antibody drug conjugate is unique compared with prior antibody drug conjugates such as trastuzumab emtansine in that it has a high drug-to-antibody ratio (~8). Furthermore, there appears to be a unique bystander effect resulting in off-target cytotoxicity to neighboring tumor cells, enhancing the efficacy of this novel therapy. Prior studies of trastuzumab deruxtecan have shown durable activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.¹

HER2-positive breast cancer represents approximately 20% of breast cancer cases in women.² Historically, HER2 positivity has been defined by strong HER2 expression with IHC staining (ie, score 3+) or HER2 amplification through ISH. Conversely, HER2-negative disease has historically been defined as those with IHC scores of 0 or 1+. This group represents approximately 60% of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients.³ These patients have limited targeted treatment options after progressing on primary therapy. Prior data has shown that patients with low HER2 expression represent a heterogeneous population and thus, the historic categorization of HER2 status as positive or negative may in fact not adequately characterize the proportion of patients who may derive clinical benefit from HER2-directed therapies. Nevertheless, there have been no data to date that have shown improved outcomes in low HER2 expressers with anti-HER2 therapies.

The current studies add to the rapidly growing body of literature outlining the efficacy of the novel antibody drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The implications of the data presented in these 2 studies are immediately practice changing.

In the DESTINY-Breast03 trial, Cortéz and colleagues show that trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy significantly prolongs progression-free survival compared with trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have progressed on first-line trastuzumab and taxane-based therapy. With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in this trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overall survival in this trial was immature at the time of this analysis, and thus continued follow-up to validate the results noted here are warranted.

The DESTINY-Breast04 trial by Modi et al expands the cohort of patients who benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan profoundly. This study defines a population of patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who will now be eligible for HER2-directed therapies. These data show that therapy with trastuzumab deruxtecan leads to a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2. This benefit was seen in both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including pre-treated triple-negative disease. Furthermore, this study does not define a threshold of HER2 expression by IHC that predicts benefit with trastuzumab deruxtecan. Patients with an IHC score of 1+ as well as those with a score of 2+/ISH negative both benefit to a similar extent from trastuzumab deruxtecan. Interestingly, in the DAISY trial, antitumor activity was noted with trastuzumab deruxtecan even in those without any detectable HER2 expression on IHC.⁴ Given the inconsistency and potential false negatives of IHC along with heterogeneous HER2 expression, further work is needed to better identify patients with low levels of HER2 expression who may benefit from this novel antibody drug conjugate. Thus, a reliable test to quantitatively assess the level of HER2 expression is needed in order to determine more accurately which patients will benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan.

Last, trastuzumab deruxtecan has been associated with interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis occurred in approximately 10% of patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial and about 12% of patients in the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Most of these events were grade 1 and grade 2. Nevertheless, clinicians must be aware of this risk and monitor patients frequently for the development of pneumonitis or interstitial lung disease.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The results of the current studies show a longer progression-free survival with trastuzumab deruxtecan in both HER2-low expressing metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer following taxane and trastuzumab-based therapy. These results are clearly practice changing and represent a new standard of care in these patient populations. It is incumbent upon treating oncologists to work with our pathology colleagues to assess HER2 IHC thoroughly in order to identify all potential patients who may benefit from trastuzumab deruxtecan in the metastatic setting. The continued advancement of anti-HER2 therapy will undoubtedly have a significant impact on patient outcomes going forward.

Practice Points

• With a hazard ratio of 0.28 for disease progression or death, the efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan highlighted in the DESTINY-Breast03 trial clearly makes this the standard of care in the second-line setting for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
• In the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy was seen in patients with metastatic breast cancer with low expression of HER2, including both the estrogen receptor–positive cohort as well as the entire population, including those with pre-treated triple-negative disease.

­—Daniel Isaac, DO, MS

The diagnosis in this patient is ulcerative colitis (UC) on the basis of physical examination, laboratory values, and endoscopy. However, this patient has the most extensive form, pancolitis, which means that inflammation and damage extend the entire length of the colon. 

The diagnosis of UC is best made with endoscopy and mucosal biopsy for histopathology. Characteristic findings are abnormal erythematous mucosa, with or without ulceration, extending from the rectum to a part or all of the colon and uniform inflammation, without intervening areas of normal mucosa (skip lesions tend to characterize Crohn disease). Contact bleeding may also be observed, with mucus identified in the lumen of the bowel.

The bowel wall is thin or of normal thickness, but edema, accumulation of fat, and hypertrophy of the muscle layer may give it the appearance of a thickened bowel wall. The disease is largely confined to the mucosa and, to a lesser extent, the submucosa.

Laboratory studies are helpful to exclude other diagnoses and assess the patient's nutritional status, and serologic markers aid in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Radiographic imaging has an important role in differentiation of UC from Crohn disease. Fistulas or the presence of small bowel disease are seen only in Crohn disease. 

According the American Gastroenterological Association, drug classes for the long-term management of moderate to severe UC include tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, anti-integrin agent (vedolizumab), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin 12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), and immunomodulators (thiopurines, methotrexate). Most drugs that are initiated for the induction of remission are continued as maintenance therapy if they are effective. This is not the case, however, if corticosteroids or cyclosporine are necessary to induce remission.

This patient's pancolitis presentation is also acute and severe, defined as more than 6 bloody bowel movements per day plus one of the following: fever > 100.4 °F, hemoglobin level < 10.5 g/dL, heart rate > 90 beats/min, erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 30 mm/h, or C-reactive protein level > 30 mg/dL). This requires hospitalization and treatment with intravenous corticosteroids (hydrocortisone 400 mg/d or methylprednisolone 60 mg/d). Considered a medical emergency, the situation requires prompt recognition and multidisciplinary management. In patients who fail therapy with 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids, medical rescue therapy is indicated with either infliximab or cyclosporine. If all measures fail, the patient may need emergency surgery.

Hospitalized patients with acute severe UC have short-term colectomy rates of 25%-30%.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The diagnosis in this patient is ulcerative colitis (UC) on the basis of physical examination, laboratory values, and endoscopy. However, this patient has the most extensive form, pancolitis, which means that inflammation and damage extend the entire length of the colon. 

The diagnosis of UC is best made with endoscopy and mucosal biopsy for histopathology. Characteristic findings are abnormal erythematous mucosa, with or without ulceration, extending from the rectum to a part or all of the colon and uniform inflammation, without intervening areas of normal mucosa (skip lesions tend to characterize Crohn disease). Contact bleeding may also be observed, with mucus identified in the lumen of the bowel.

The bowel wall is thin or of normal thickness, but edema, accumulation of fat, and hypertrophy of the muscle layer may give it the appearance of a thickened bowel wall. The disease is largely confined to the mucosa and, to a lesser extent, the submucosa.

Laboratory studies are helpful to exclude other diagnoses and assess the patient's nutritional status, and serologic markers aid in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Radiographic imaging has an important role in differentiation of UC from Crohn disease. Fistulas or the presence of small bowel disease are seen only in Crohn disease. 

According the American Gastroenterological Association, drug classes for the long-term management of moderate to severe UC include tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, anti-integrin agent (vedolizumab), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin 12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), and immunomodulators (thiopurines, methotrexate). Most drugs that are initiated for the induction of remission are continued as maintenance therapy if they are effective. This is not the case, however, if corticosteroids or cyclosporine are necessary to induce remission.

This patient's pancolitis presentation is also acute and severe, defined as more than 6 bloody bowel movements per day plus one of the following: fever > 100.4 °F, hemoglobin level < 10.5 g/dL, heart rate > 90 beats/min, erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 30 mm/h, or C-reactive protein level > 30 mg/dL). This requires hospitalization and treatment with intravenous corticosteroids (hydrocortisone 400 mg/d or methylprednisolone 60 mg/d). Considered a medical emergency, the situation requires prompt recognition and multidisciplinary management. In patients who fail therapy with 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids, medical rescue therapy is indicated with either infliximab or cyclosporine. If all measures fail, the patient may need emergency surgery.

Hospitalized patients with acute severe UC have short-term colectomy rates of 25%-30%.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The diagnosis in this patient is ulcerative colitis (UC) on the basis of physical examination, laboratory values, and endoscopy. However, this patient has the most extensive form, pancolitis, which means that inflammation and damage extend the entire length of the colon. 

The diagnosis of UC is best made with endoscopy and mucosal biopsy for histopathology. Characteristic findings are abnormal erythematous mucosa, with or without ulceration, extending from the rectum to a part or all of the colon and uniform inflammation, without intervening areas of normal mucosa (skip lesions tend to characterize Crohn disease). Contact bleeding may also be observed, with mucus identified in the lumen of the bowel.

The bowel wall is thin or of normal thickness, but edema, accumulation of fat, and hypertrophy of the muscle layer may give it the appearance of a thickened bowel wall. The disease is largely confined to the mucosa and, to a lesser extent, the submucosa.

Laboratory studies are helpful to exclude other diagnoses and assess the patient's nutritional status, and serologic markers aid in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Radiographic imaging has an important role in differentiation of UC from Crohn disease. Fistulas or the presence of small bowel disease are seen only in Crohn disease. 

According the American Gastroenterological Association, drug classes for the long-term management of moderate to severe UC include tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, anti-integrin agent (vedolizumab), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin 12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), and immunomodulators (thiopurines, methotrexate). Most drugs that are initiated for the induction of remission are continued as maintenance therapy if they are effective. This is not the case, however, if corticosteroids or cyclosporine are necessary to induce remission.

This patient's pancolitis presentation is also acute and severe, defined as more than 6 bloody bowel movements per day plus one of the following: fever > 100.4 °F, hemoglobin level < 10.5 g/dL, heart rate > 90 beats/min, erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 30 mm/h, or C-reactive protein level > 30 mg/dL). This requires hospitalization and treatment with intravenous corticosteroids (hydrocortisone 400 mg/d or methylprednisolone 60 mg/d). Considered a medical emergency, the situation requires prompt recognition and multidisciplinary management. In patients who fail therapy with 3-5 days of intravenous corticosteroids, medical rescue therapy is indicated with either infliximab or cyclosporine. If all measures fail, the patient may need emergency surgery.

Hospitalized patients with acute severe UC have short-term colectomy rates of 25%-30%.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Medical malpractice claims can arise in any type of health care setting. The purpose of this article is to discuss the risk of medical malpractice suits in the context of brief “med checks,” which are 15- to 20-minute follow-up appointments for psychiatric outpatient medication management. Similar issues arise in brief new patient and transfer visits.

Malpractice hinges on ‘reasonableness’

Malpractice is an allegation of professional negligence.¹ More specifically, it is an allegation that a clinician violated an existing duty by deviating from the standard of care, and that deviation caused damages.² Medical malpractice claims involve questions about whether there was a deviation from the standard of care (whether the clinician failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care given the context of the situation) and whether there was causation (whether a deviation caused a patient’s damages).³ These are fact-based determinations. Thus, the legal resolution of a malpractice claim is based on the facts of each specific case.

The advisability of 15-minute med checks and the associated limitation on a clinician’s ability to provide talk therapy are beyond the scope of this article. What is clear, however, is that not all brief med check appointments are created equal. Their safety and efficacy are dictated by the milieu in which they exist.

Practically speaking, although many factors need to be considered, the standard of care in a medical malpractice lawsuit is based on reasonableness.^4-6 One strategy to proactively manage your malpractice risk is to consider—either for your existing job or before accepting a new position—whether your agency’s setup for brief med checks will allow you to practice reasonably. This article provides information to help you answer this question and describes a hypothetical case vignette to illustrate how certain factors might help lower the chances of facing a malpractice suit.

Established patients

In med check appointments for established patients, consider the patient population, the availability of pre- and postvisit support services, and contingency plans (Table).

Different patient populations require different levels of treatment. Consider, for example, a patient with anxiety and trauma who is actively engaged with a therapist who works at the same agency as their psychiatrist, where the medication management appointments are solely for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor refills. Compare that to a dual-diagnosis patient—with a psychotic and substance use disorder—who has had poor medication compliance and frequent rehospitalizations. The first patient is more likely to be reasonably managed in a 15-minute med check. The second patient would need significantly more pre- and postvisit support services. This consideration is relevant from a clinical perspective, and if a bad outcome occurs, from a malpractice perspective. Patient populations are not homogeneous; the reasonableness of a clinician’s actions during a brief med check visit depends on the specific patient.

Pre- and postvisit support services vary greatly from clinic to clinic. They range from clerical support (eg, calling a pharmacy to ensure that a patient’s medication is available for same-day pickup) to nursing support (eg, an injection nurse who is on site and can immediately provide a patient with a missed injection) to case manager support (eg, a case manager to facilitate coordination of care, such as by having a patient fill out record releases and then working to ensure that relevant hospital records are received prior to the next visit). The real-world availability of these services can determine the feasibility of safely conducting a 15-minute med check visit.

Continue to: Regardless of the patient population...

Regardless of the patient population, unexpected situations will arise. It could be a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder who was recently retraumatized and is in the midst of disclosing this new trauma at the end of a 15-minute visit. Or it could be a patient with dual diagnoses who comes to the agency intoxicated and manic, describing a plan to kill his neighbor with a shotgun. A clinician’s ability to meet the standard of care, and act reasonably within the confines of a brief med check structure, can thus depend on whether there are means of adequately managing such emergent situations.

Some clinics have fairly high no-show rates. Leaving no-show slots open for administrative time can provide a means of managing emergent situations. If, however, they are automatically rebooked with walk-ins, brief visits become more challenging. Thus, when assessing contingency plan logistics, consider the no-show rate, what happens when there are no-shows, how many other clinicians are available on a given day, and whether staff is available to provide support (eg, sitting with a patient while waiting for an ambulance).

New and transfer patients

Brief visits for new or transfer patients require the same assessment described above. However, there are additional considerations regarding previsit support services. Some clinics use clinical social workers to perform intake evaluations before a new patient sees the psychiatrist. A high-quality intake evaluation can allow a psychiatrist to focus, in a shorter amount of time, on a patient’s medication needs. An additional time saver is having support staff who will obtain relevant medical records before a patient’s first psychiatric visit. Such actions can greatly increase the efficacy of a new patient appointment for the prescribing clinician.

The reliability of and level of detail assessed in prior evaluations can be particularly relevant when considering a job providing coverage as locum tenens, when all patients will be new to you. Unfortunately, if you are not employed at a clinic, it can be hard to assess this ahead of time. If you know colleagues in the area where you are considering taking a locum position, ask for their opinions about the quality of work at the agency.

Case vignette

Mr. J is a 30-year-old man with schizoaffective disorder. For several years, he has been followed once every 4 weeks at the local clinic. During the first year of treatment, he had numerous hospitalizations due to medication noncompliance, psychotic episodes, and threats of violence against his mother. For the past year, he had been stable on the same dose of an oral antipsychotic medication (risperidone 2 mg twice a day). Then he stopped taking his medication, became increasingly psychotic, and, while holding a butcher knife, threatened to kill his mother. His mother called 911 and Mr. J was hospitalized.

Continue to: While in the hospital...

While in the hospital, Mr. J was restarted on risperidone 2 mg twice a day, and lithium 600 mg twice a day was added. As part of discharge planning, the hospital social worker set up an outpatient appointment with Dr. R, Mr. J’s treating psychiatrist at the clinic. That appointment was scheduled as a 15-minute med check. At the visit, Dr. R did not have or try to obtain a copy of the hospital discharge summary. Mr. J told Dr. R that he had been hospitalized because he had run out of his oral antipsychotic, and that it had been restarted during the hospitalization. Dr. R—who did not know about the recent incident involving a butcher knife or the subsequent medication changes—continued Mr. J’s risperidone, but did not continue his lithium because she did not know it had been added.

Dr. R scheduled a 4-week follow-up visit for Mr. J. Then she went on maternity leave. Because the agency was short-staffed, they hired Dr. C—a locum tenens—to see all of Dr. R’s established patients in 15-minute time slots.

At their first visit, Mr. J told Dr. C that he was gaining too much weight from his antipsychotic and wanted to know if it would be OK to decrease the dose. Dr. C reviewed Dr. R’s last office note but, due to limited time, did not review any other notes. Although Dr. C had 2 no-shows that day, the clinic had a policy that required Dr. C to see walk-ins whenever there was a no-show.

Dr. C did not know of Mr. J’s threats of violence or the medication changes associated with his recent hospitalization (they were not referenced in Dr. R’s last note). Dr. C decreased the dose of Mr. J’s risperidone from 2 mg twice a day to 0.5 mg twice a day. He did not do a violence risk assessment. Two weeks after the visit with Dr. C, Mr. J, who had become increasingly depressed and psychotic, killed his mother and died by suicide.

The estates of Mr. J and his mother filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. R and Dr. C. Both psychiatrists had a duty to Mr. J. Whether there was a duty to Mr. J’s mother would depend in part on the state’s duty to protect laws. Either way, the malpractice case would hinge on whether the psychiatrists’ conduct fell below the standard of care.

Continue to: In this case...

In this case, the critical issues were Dr. R’s failure to obtain and review the recent hospital records and Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose. Of particular concern is Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose without reviewing more information from past records, and the resultant failure to perform a violence risk assessment. These deviations cannot be blamed entirely on the brevity of the med check appointment. They could happen in a clinic that allotted longer time periods for follow-up visits, but they are, however, more likely to occur in a short med check appointment due to time constraints.

The likelihood of these errors could have been reduced by additional support services, as well as more time for Dr. C to see each patient who was new to him. For example, if there had been a support person available to obtain hospital records prior to the postdischarge appointment, Dr. R and Dr. C would have been more likely to be aware of the violent threat associated with Mr. J’s hospitalization. Additionally, if the busy clinicians had contingency plans to assess complicated patients, such as the ability to use no-show time to deal with difficult situations, Dr. C could have taken more time to review past records.

Bottom Line

When working in a setting that involves brief med check appointments, assess the agency structure, and whether it will allow you to practice reasonably. This will be relevant clinically and may reduce the risk of malpractice lawsuits. Reasonableness of a clinician’s actions is a fact-specific question and is influenced by multiple factors, including the patient population, the availability and quality of an agency’s support services, and contingency plans.

Related Resources

• Mossman D. Successfully navigating the 15-minute ‘med check.’ Current Psychiatry. 2010;9(6):40-43.
• Olfson M, Marcus SC. National trends in outpatient psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(12):1456-1463.

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Risperidone • Risperdal

Medical malpractice claims can arise in any type of health care setting. The purpose of this article is to discuss the risk of medical malpractice suits in the context of brief “med checks,” which are 15- to 20-minute follow-up appointments for psychiatric outpatient medication management. Similar issues arise in brief new patient and transfer visits.

Malpractice hinges on ‘reasonableness’

Malpractice is an allegation of professional negligence.¹ More specifically, it is an allegation that a clinician violated an existing duty by deviating from the standard of care, and that deviation caused damages.² Medical malpractice claims involve questions about whether there was a deviation from the standard of care (whether the clinician failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care given the context of the situation) and whether there was causation (whether a deviation caused a patient’s damages).³ These are fact-based determinations. Thus, the legal resolution of a malpractice claim is based on the facts of each specific case.

The advisability of 15-minute med checks and the associated limitation on a clinician’s ability to provide talk therapy are beyond the scope of this article. What is clear, however, is that not all brief med check appointments are created equal. Their safety and efficacy are dictated by the milieu in which they exist.

Practically speaking, although many factors need to be considered, the standard of care in a medical malpractice lawsuit is based on reasonableness.^4-6 One strategy to proactively manage your malpractice risk is to consider—either for your existing job or before accepting a new position—whether your agency’s setup for brief med checks will allow you to practice reasonably. This article provides information to help you answer this question and describes a hypothetical case vignette to illustrate how certain factors might help lower the chances of facing a malpractice suit.

Established patients

In med check appointments for established patients, consider the patient population, the availability of pre- and postvisit support services, and contingency plans (Table).

Different patient populations require different levels of treatment. Consider, for example, a patient with anxiety and trauma who is actively engaged with a therapist who works at the same agency as their psychiatrist, where the medication management appointments are solely for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor refills. Compare that to a dual-diagnosis patient—with a psychotic and substance use disorder—who has had poor medication compliance and frequent rehospitalizations. The first patient is more likely to be reasonably managed in a 15-minute med check. The second patient would need significantly more pre- and postvisit support services. This consideration is relevant from a clinical perspective, and if a bad outcome occurs, from a malpractice perspective. Patient populations are not homogeneous; the reasonableness of a clinician’s actions during a brief med check visit depends on the specific patient.

Pre- and postvisit support services vary greatly from clinic to clinic. They range from clerical support (eg, calling a pharmacy to ensure that a patient’s medication is available for same-day pickup) to nursing support (eg, an injection nurse who is on site and can immediately provide a patient with a missed injection) to case manager support (eg, a case manager to facilitate coordination of care, such as by having a patient fill out record releases and then working to ensure that relevant hospital records are received prior to the next visit). The real-world availability of these services can determine the feasibility of safely conducting a 15-minute med check visit.

Continue to: Regardless of the patient population...

Regardless of the patient population, unexpected situations will arise. It could be a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder who was recently retraumatized and is in the midst of disclosing this new trauma at the end of a 15-minute visit. Or it could be a patient with dual diagnoses who comes to the agency intoxicated and manic, describing a plan to kill his neighbor with a shotgun. A clinician’s ability to meet the standard of care, and act reasonably within the confines of a brief med check structure, can thus depend on whether there are means of adequately managing such emergent situations.

Some clinics have fairly high no-show rates. Leaving no-show slots open for administrative time can provide a means of managing emergent situations. If, however, they are automatically rebooked with walk-ins, brief visits become more challenging. Thus, when assessing contingency plan logistics, consider the no-show rate, what happens when there are no-shows, how many other clinicians are available on a given day, and whether staff is available to provide support (eg, sitting with a patient while waiting for an ambulance).

New and transfer patients

Brief visits for new or transfer patients require the same assessment described above. However, there are additional considerations regarding previsit support services. Some clinics use clinical social workers to perform intake evaluations before a new patient sees the psychiatrist. A high-quality intake evaluation can allow a psychiatrist to focus, in a shorter amount of time, on a patient’s medication needs. An additional time saver is having support staff who will obtain relevant medical records before a patient’s first psychiatric visit. Such actions can greatly increase the efficacy of a new patient appointment for the prescribing clinician.

The reliability of and level of detail assessed in prior evaluations can be particularly relevant when considering a job providing coverage as locum tenens, when all patients will be new to you. Unfortunately, if you are not employed at a clinic, it can be hard to assess this ahead of time. If you know colleagues in the area where you are considering taking a locum position, ask for their opinions about the quality of work at the agency.

Case vignette

Mr. J is a 30-year-old man with schizoaffective disorder. For several years, he has been followed once every 4 weeks at the local clinic. During the first year of treatment, he had numerous hospitalizations due to medication noncompliance, psychotic episodes, and threats of violence against his mother. For the past year, he had been stable on the same dose of an oral antipsychotic medication (risperidone 2 mg twice a day). Then he stopped taking his medication, became increasingly psychotic, and, while holding a butcher knife, threatened to kill his mother. His mother called 911 and Mr. J was hospitalized.

Continue to: While in the hospital...

While in the hospital, Mr. J was restarted on risperidone 2 mg twice a day, and lithium 600 mg twice a day was added. As part of discharge planning, the hospital social worker set up an outpatient appointment with Dr. R, Mr. J’s treating psychiatrist at the clinic. That appointment was scheduled as a 15-minute med check. At the visit, Dr. R did not have or try to obtain a copy of the hospital discharge summary. Mr. J told Dr. R that he had been hospitalized because he had run out of his oral antipsychotic, and that it had been restarted during the hospitalization. Dr. R—who did not know about the recent incident involving a butcher knife or the subsequent medication changes—continued Mr. J’s risperidone, but did not continue his lithium because she did not know it had been added.

Dr. R scheduled a 4-week follow-up visit for Mr. J. Then she went on maternity leave. Because the agency was short-staffed, they hired Dr. C—a locum tenens—to see all of Dr. R’s established patients in 15-minute time slots.

At their first visit, Mr. J told Dr. C that he was gaining too much weight from his antipsychotic and wanted to know if it would be OK to decrease the dose. Dr. C reviewed Dr. R’s last office note but, due to limited time, did not review any other notes. Although Dr. C had 2 no-shows that day, the clinic had a policy that required Dr. C to see walk-ins whenever there was a no-show.

Dr. C did not know of Mr. J’s threats of violence or the medication changes associated with his recent hospitalization (they were not referenced in Dr. R’s last note). Dr. C decreased the dose of Mr. J’s risperidone from 2 mg twice a day to 0.5 mg twice a day. He did not do a violence risk assessment. Two weeks after the visit with Dr. C, Mr. J, who had become increasingly depressed and psychotic, killed his mother and died by suicide.

The estates of Mr. J and his mother filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. R and Dr. C. Both psychiatrists had a duty to Mr. J. Whether there was a duty to Mr. J’s mother would depend in part on the state’s duty to protect laws. Either way, the malpractice case would hinge on whether the psychiatrists’ conduct fell below the standard of care.

Continue to: In this case...

In this case, the critical issues were Dr. R’s failure to obtain and review the recent hospital records and Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose. Of particular concern is Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose without reviewing more information from past records, and the resultant failure to perform a violence risk assessment. These deviations cannot be blamed entirely on the brevity of the med check appointment. They could happen in a clinic that allotted longer time periods for follow-up visits, but they are, however, more likely to occur in a short med check appointment due to time constraints.

The likelihood of these errors could have been reduced by additional support services, as well as more time for Dr. C to see each patient who was new to him. For example, if there had been a support person available to obtain hospital records prior to the postdischarge appointment, Dr. R and Dr. C would have been more likely to be aware of the violent threat associated with Mr. J’s hospitalization. Additionally, if the busy clinicians had contingency plans to assess complicated patients, such as the ability to use no-show time to deal with difficult situations, Dr. C could have taken more time to review past records.

Bottom Line

When working in a setting that involves brief med check appointments, assess the agency structure, and whether it will allow you to practice reasonably. This will be relevant clinically and may reduce the risk of malpractice lawsuits. Reasonableness of a clinician’s actions is a fact-specific question and is influenced by multiple factors, including the patient population, the availability and quality of an agency’s support services, and contingency plans.

Related Resources

• Mossman D. Successfully navigating the 15-minute ‘med check.’ Current Psychiatry. 2010;9(6):40-43.
• Olfson M, Marcus SC. National trends in outpatient psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(12):1456-1463.

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Risperidone • Risperdal

Medical malpractice claims can arise in any type of health care setting. The purpose of this article is to discuss the risk of medical malpractice suits in the context of brief “med checks,” which are 15- to 20-minute follow-up appointments for psychiatric outpatient medication management. Similar issues arise in brief new patient and transfer visits.

Malpractice hinges on ‘reasonableness’

Malpractice is an allegation of professional negligence.¹ More specifically, it is an allegation that a clinician violated an existing duty by deviating from the standard of care, and that deviation caused damages.² Medical malpractice claims involve questions about whether there was a deviation from the standard of care (whether the clinician failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care given the context of the situation) and whether there was causation (whether a deviation caused a patient’s damages).³ These are fact-based determinations. Thus, the legal resolution of a malpractice claim is based on the facts of each specific case.

The advisability of 15-minute med checks and the associated limitation on a clinician’s ability to provide talk therapy are beyond the scope of this article. What is clear, however, is that not all brief med check appointments are created equal. Their safety and efficacy are dictated by the milieu in which they exist.

Practically speaking, although many factors need to be considered, the standard of care in a medical malpractice lawsuit is based on reasonableness.^4-6 One strategy to proactively manage your malpractice risk is to consider—either for your existing job or before accepting a new position—whether your agency’s setup for brief med checks will allow you to practice reasonably. This article provides information to help you answer this question and describes a hypothetical case vignette to illustrate how certain factors might help lower the chances of facing a malpractice suit.

Established patients

In med check appointments for established patients, consider the patient population, the availability of pre- and postvisit support services, and contingency plans (Table).

Different patient populations require different levels of treatment. Consider, for example, a patient with anxiety and trauma who is actively engaged with a therapist who works at the same agency as their psychiatrist, where the medication management appointments are solely for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor refills. Compare that to a dual-diagnosis patient—with a psychotic and substance use disorder—who has had poor medication compliance and frequent rehospitalizations. The first patient is more likely to be reasonably managed in a 15-minute med check. The second patient would need significantly more pre- and postvisit support services. This consideration is relevant from a clinical perspective, and if a bad outcome occurs, from a malpractice perspective. Patient populations are not homogeneous; the reasonableness of a clinician’s actions during a brief med check visit depends on the specific patient.

Pre- and postvisit support services vary greatly from clinic to clinic. They range from clerical support (eg, calling a pharmacy to ensure that a patient’s medication is available for same-day pickup) to nursing support (eg, an injection nurse who is on site and can immediately provide a patient with a missed injection) to case manager support (eg, a case manager to facilitate coordination of care, such as by having a patient fill out record releases and then working to ensure that relevant hospital records are received prior to the next visit). The real-world availability of these services can determine the feasibility of safely conducting a 15-minute med check visit.

Continue to: Regardless of the patient population...

Regardless of the patient population, unexpected situations will arise. It could be a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder who was recently retraumatized and is in the midst of disclosing this new trauma at the end of a 15-minute visit. Or it could be a patient with dual diagnoses who comes to the agency intoxicated and manic, describing a plan to kill his neighbor with a shotgun. A clinician’s ability to meet the standard of care, and act reasonably within the confines of a brief med check structure, can thus depend on whether there are means of adequately managing such emergent situations.

Some clinics have fairly high no-show rates. Leaving no-show slots open for administrative time can provide a means of managing emergent situations. If, however, they are automatically rebooked with walk-ins, brief visits become more challenging. Thus, when assessing contingency plan logistics, consider the no-show rate, what happens when there are no-shows, how many other clinicians are available on a given day, and whether staff is available to provide support (eg, sitting with a patient while waiting for an ambulance).

New and transfer patients

Brief visits for new or transfer patients require the same assessment described above. However, there are additional considerations regarding previsit support services. Some clinics use clinical social workers to perform intake evaluations before a new patient sees the psychiatrist. A high-quality intake evaluation can allow a psychiatrist to focus, in a shorter amount of time, on a patient’s medication needs. An additional time saver is having support staff who will obtain relevant medical records before a patient’s first psychiatric visit. Such actions can greatly increase the efficacy of a new patient appointment for the prescribing clinician.

The reliability of and level of detail assessed in prior evaluations can be particularly relevant when considering a job providing coverage as locum tenens, when all patients will be new to you. Unfortunately, if you are not employed at a clinic, it can be hard to assess this ahead of time. If you know colleagues in the area where you are considering taking a locum position, ask for their opinions about the quality of work at the agency.

Case vignette

Mr. J is a 30-year-old man with schizoaffective disorder. For several years, he has been followed once every 4 weeks at the local clinic. During the first year of treatment, he had numerous hospitalizations due to medication noncompliance, psychotic episodes, and threats of violence against his mother. For the past year, he had been stable on the same dose of an oral antipsychotic medication (risperidone 2 mg twice a day). Then he stopped taking his medication, became increasingly psychotic, and, while holding a butcher knife, threatened to kill his mother. His mother called 911 and Mr. J was hospitalized.

Continue to: While in the hospital...

While in the hospital, Mr. J was restarted on risperidone 2 mg twice a day, and lithium 600 mg twice a day was added. As part of discharge planning, the hospital social worker set up an outpatient appointment with Dr. R, Mr. J’s treating psychiatrist at the clinic. That appointment was scheduled as a 15-minute med check. At the visit, Dr. R did not have or try to obtain a copy of the hospital discharge summary. Mr. J told Dr. R that he had been hospitalized because he had run out of his oral antipsychotic, and that it had been restarted during the hospitalization. Dr. R—who did not know about the recent incident involving a butcher knife or the subsequent medication changes—continued Mr. J’s risperidone, but did not continue his lithium because she did not know it had been added.

Dr. R scheduled a 4-week follow-up visit for Mr. J. Then she went on maternity leave. Because the agency was short-staffed, they hired Dr. C—a locum tenens—to see all of Dr. R’s established patients in 15-minute time slots.

At their first visit, Mr. J told Dr. C that he was gaining too much weight from his antipsychotic and wanted to know if it would be OK to decrease the dose. Dr. C reviewed Dr. R’s last office note but, due to limited time, did not review any other notes. Although Dr. C had 2 no-shows that day, the clinic had a policy that required Dr. C to see walk-ins whenever there was a no-show.

Dr. C did not know of Mr. J’s threats of violence or the medication changes associated with his recent hospitalization (they were not referenced in Dr. R’s last note). Dr. C decreased the dose of Mr. J’s risperidone from 2 mg twice a day to 0.5 mg twice a day. He did not do a violence risk assessment. Two weeks after the visit with Dr. C, Mr. J, who had become increasingly depressed and psychotic, killed his mother and died by suicide.

The estates of Mr. J and his mother filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. R and Dr. C. Both psychiatrists had a duty to Mr. J. Whether there was a duty to Mr. J’s mother would depend in part on the state’s duty to protect laws. Either way, the malpractice case would hinge on whether the psychiatrists’ conduct fell below the standard of care.

Continue to: In this case...

In this case, the critical issues were Dr. R’s failure to obtain and review the recent hospital records and Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose. Of particular concern is Dr. C’s decision to decrease the antipsychotic dose without reviewing more information from past records, and the resultant failure to perform a violence risk assessment. These deviations cannot be blamed entirely on the brevity of the med check appointment. They could happen in a clinic that allotted longer time periods for follow-up visits, but they are, however, more likely to occur in a short med check appointment due to time constraints.

The likelihood of these errors could have been reduced by additional support services, as well as more time for Dr. C to see each patient who was new to him. For example, if there had been a support person available to obtain hospital records prior to the postdischarge appointment, Dr. R and Dr. C would have been more likely to be aware of the violent threat associated with Mr. J’s hospitalization. Additionally, if the busy clinicians had contingency plans to assess complicated patients, such as the ability to use no-show time to deal with difficult situations, Dr. C could have taken more time to review past records.

Bottom Line

When working in a setting that involves brief med check appointments, assess the agency structure, and whether it will allow you to practice reasonably. This will be relevant clinically and may reduce the risk of malpractice lawsuits. Reasonableness of a clinician’s actions is a fact-specific question and is influenced by multiple factors, including the patient population, the availability and quality of an agency’s support services, and contingency plans.

Related Resources

• Mossman D. Successfully navigating the 15-minute ‘med check.’ Current Psychiatry. 2010;9(6):40-43.
• Olfson M, Marcus SC. National trends in outpatient psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(12):1456-1463.

Drug Brand Names

Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Risperidone • Risperdal

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Common forms of NSSI include cutting, burning, scraping/scratching skin, biting, hitting, and interfering with wound healing.² Functional theories suggest that NSSI temporarily alleviates overwhelming negative emotions and can produce feelings of relief, resulting in a reinforcing effect.³

NSSI has been shown to be a risk factor for future suicide attempts.⁴ A 2018 study found that NSSI is associated with an increased risk of subsequent suicidal ideation (odds ratio [OR] 2.8), suicide plan (OR 3.0), and suicide attempt (OR 5.5).⁵ NSSI is also associated with individuals who had suicidal ideation and formed a suicide plan, and individuals who had a suicide plan and attempted suicide (ORs 1.7 to 2.1).⁵ Another study found that 70% of adolescents who engage in NSSI have attempted suicide during their lifetime, and 55% have multiple attempts.⁶

Given the overlap between suicide attempts and NSSI, performing a thorough suicide risk assessment (which is beyond the scope of this article) is crucial. This article describes the static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents and adults, which can help us perform a suicide risk assessment and allow us to formulate an appropriate treatment plan that includes safety-based interventions.

NSSI risk factors for adolescents

From developing sexual identity and undergoing puberty to achieving increased independence from their parents and developing a sense of autonomy, adolescents undergo many biological, psychological, and social changes before reaching adulthood.⁷ Data suggest that NSSI often begins in adolescence, with a typical onset at age 13 or 14.³ Community studies show that one-third to one-half of adolescents in the United States have engaged in NSSI.^8,9 Previously, NSSI during adolescence was associated with 3 major diagnostic categories: eating disorders, developmental disabilities, and borderline personality disorder (BPD).¹⁰ However, recent data suggest that NSSI is also common outside of these categories. Here we describe static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents (Table 1^11-42). Table 2^11-42 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adolescents that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Female adolescents and adults engage in NSSI at higher rates than males. The difference is larger in clinical populations compared to the general population.¹¹

A large portion of research about NSSI has been conducted in studies in which the majority of participants were White.¹² Most studies report a higher prevalence of NSSI among non-Hispanic White youth,¹³ but some suggest other ethnic groups may also experience high rates of self-harm and NSSI.^13-15 Several studies have demonstrated high rates of self-harm among South Asian adult females compared with White adult females, but this difference may be less pronounced in adolescents.¹⁴ One study in the United Kingdom found that White females age 10 to 14 had higher rates of self-harm compared to South Asian females,¹⁴ while another found that risk and rates of self-harm in young South Asian people varied by city and country of origin.¹⁵ Young Black females¹⁵ and young Black males¹³ also may be at an increased risk of self-harm. One review found that Black females were more likely to self-harm than Asian or White groups.¹⁵

Several studies suggest that sexual minority adolescents (SMA) (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) are at greater risk for NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ SMA have been shown to engage in a significantly greater frequency of NSSI and more types of NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ Furthermore, on the Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury, SMA self-reported using NSSI for intrapersonal functions (eg, for affect regulation, antisuicide, self-punishment) significantly greater than their heterosexual peers; however, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups on interpersonal functions (eg, autonomy, interpersonal boundaries, peer bonding, sensation-seeking).¹⁶

Continue to: Transgender and gender nonconfirming...

Transgender and gender nonconfirming (GNC) youth are at a particularly high risk for NSSI; 30% to 45.5% of transgender adolescents report self-injury.¹⁷ Factors shown to distinguish transgender/GNC youth who engage in NSSI from those who do not include having a mental health problem, depression, running away from home, substance use, lower self-esteem/greater self-criticism, experiencing transphobia victimization, and having more interpersonal problems.^18,19 Among transgender/GNC youth, those whose biological sex is female are more likely to report NSSI than those whose biological sex is male (ie, transgendered adolescent males are more likely to report NSSI than transgendered adolescent females).^18,19

Most forms of childhood maltreatment have been associated with NSSI. In a recently published review, Liu et al²⁰ found that childhood maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and physical neglect) was associated with an increased risk for NSSI. However, conflicting evidence suggests that when confounders are removed, only childhood emotional abuse was directly associated with NSSI.²¹ Current evidence is modest for childhood emotional neglect as a risk factor for NSSI.²⁰

Increasing research is investigating the biological processes that may be implicated in NSSI. Some studies suggest that endogenous opioids,²² monoamine neurotransmitters,²² and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis²³ may play a role in NSSI. Compared to healthy controls, adolescents engaging in NSSI have been shown to have lower pain intensity (P = .036), higher pain thresholds (P = .040), and lower beta-endorphins (endogenous opioid hormones involved in mediating stress and pain) (P = .002).²⁴ There may be alterations in the HPA axis among adolescents who engage in NSSI, more specifically stronger cortisol awakening responses.²³ Both functional and standard MRI have been used to study the neurobiology of NSSI. One study demonstrated differences in functional connectivity between brain areas linked to neuroregulation of emotions in adolescents who engage in NSSI,²⁵ while another found volume reduction in the insula of these adolescents, which suggests a possible neurobiological reason for impulsivity and the increased risk of suicidal behavior.²⁶

Dynamic risk factors

Research has repeatedly shown bullying is a risk factor for NSSI.²⁷ One study found that younger children who were victimized reported significantly more NSSI than older children.²⁸ New data suggest that perpetrators of bullying are also at risk for deliberate self-harm behavior (SHB), which this study defined as a behavior that is intended to cause self-harm but without suicidal intent and having a nonfatal outcome.²⁹ Victims of cyberbullying also are at a greater risk for self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and suicide attempt.³⁰ To a lesser extent, cyberbullying perpetrators are at greater risk for suicidal behaviors and suicidal ideation.³⁰ Bullying is a risk factor for NSSI not only in adolescence, but also in adulthood. Lereya et al³¹ found that victims of bullying in childhood and early adolescence were more likely to have mental health problems (including anxiety and depression) and more likely to engage in SHB—which this study defined as hurting oneself on purpose in any way—as adults.

The effects of internet use on adolescents’ mental health also has been investigated. A recent review that explored the relationship between all types of internet use (general use, internet addiction, social media, self-harm websites, forums, etc) and SHB/suicidal behavior found that young people with internet addiction, high levels of internet use, and a tendency to view websites with self-harm or suicidal content were at higher risk of engaging in SHB/suicidal behavior.³² This study did not use a specific definition for SHB or suicidal behavior.³²

Continue to: Membership in certain youth...

Membership in certain youth subcultures (eg, emo or goth) has been evaluated as potential risk factors for depression and deliberate self-harm. Bowes et al³³ found that for each unit increase in goth affiliation (not at all, not very much, somewhat, more than somewhat, very much), youth were 1.52 times more likely to engage in SHB; these researchers also reported a dose-response association between goth identification and future SHB. This study asked participants if they have ever tried to harm or hurt themselves in any manner, but did not distinguish between individuals who had harmed themselves with and without suicidal intent.³³

Personality traits such as impulsiveness and loneliness have been linked to NSSI among adolescents.^34,35 A recent study found that adolescents who met the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for NSSI scored higher on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, specifically in measures of:

• motor impulsiveness (ie, acting without thinking)
• attentional impulsiveness (ie, making decisions quickly)
• impulsiveness due to lack of planning (ie, failure to plan for the future).³⁴

This study also found that adolescents who identified as being lonely based on scores on the Brazilian Loneliness Scale were at a higher risk for NSSI.³⁴

A recent systematic review (32 studies) and meta-analysis (9 studies) found that school absenteeism was associated with a risk of self-harm (pooled aOR 1.37, P = .01) and suicidal ideation (pooled aOR 1.20, P = .03).³⁶ This study suggested that school absenteeism, an important marker of social exclusion, was associated with both SHB and suicidal ideation in young people.³⁶ It defined SHB as any act of self-injury or self-poisoning, regardless of intent.³⁶

Finally, family-related factors have been associated with an increased risk of NSSI. One study of 11,814 children age 9 and 10 revealed that high family conflict (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14) and low parental monitoring (OR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98) were associated with NSSI.³⁷ A smaller, community-based study found that adolescents with NSSI reported significantly less maternal support and warmth than nonclinical controls, but a cause-and-effect relationship has not yet been determined.³⁸ Parental history alone may influence adolescents’ risk of NSSI. A study that included nearly 76,000 youth found that adolescents with perceived parental alcohol problems had higher odds of self-injury, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.³⁹ Adolescents exposed to maternal or paternal adversities were also at a higher risk of self-harm (hazard ratio 1.5 to 5.4 among males, 1.7 to 3.9 among females).⁴⁰

Continue to: NSSI risk factors for adults

NSSI risk factors for adults

Although data regarding the prevalence of NSSI in adults are lacking, available studies report a 12-month prevalence of 0.9%² and a lifetime prevalence of 5.5% to 5.9%.⁴³ There is a significant overlap in risk factors for NSSI in adolescent and adult populations, but there are also many important differences. The static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adults are described in Table 3.^44-66 Table 4^44-66 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adults that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Research findings regarding the prevalence of NSSI based on gender are varied. For years, it has been believed that women are more likely to engage in NSSI than men. Recent meta-analyses that have examined this relationship closely found that the gender difference is larger for clinical samples compared to community samples and more pronounced in younger individuals.¹¹

As is the case with adolescents, there may be ethnic variations in rates of self-harm and NSSI among adults. A 2013 study by Chesin et al⁴⁴ found that Asian and White young adults experience higher rates of NSSI than their Hispanic and Black counterparts. Evidence suggests that relative rates of self-harm for older South Asian adults are lower than in older White adults.¹⁵

Compared to heterosexual or cisgender individuals, members of sexual and gender minorities have a higher past-year and lifetime prevalence of NSSI.⁴⁵ One study found that the weighted effect size between sexual orientation and NSSI had an OR of 3 (95% CI, 2.46 to 3.66), indicating a medium-to-large effect.⁴⁶ Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at the highest risk for NSSI when compared to members of other sexual and gender minority groups.⁴⁵ One review that included mostly cross-sectional studies found that individuals identifying as bisexual had up to 6 times the odds of engaging in NSSI when compared to those of other sexual orientations.⁴⁷

Incarceration is a risk factor for NSSI. The rates of NSSI in criminal justice settings are higher (up to 61%) than in the general adult population (approximately 4%).⁴⁸ Recent research found that NSSI serves similar functions in correctional and non-correctional settings, primarily to regulate emotions.⁴⁸ However, there is also evidence of higher rates of NSSI being motivated by an attempt to influence the environment (ie, engaging in NSSI in order to be transferred to another prison unit) compared to NSSI in community settings.⁴⁸

Continue to: Though less robust than data...

Though less robust than data published regarding adolescents, the role of biological processes in adults engaging in NSSI has also been studied. A 2021 study by Störkel et al⁴⁹ found that levels of salivary beta-endorphins were significantly lower in adults immediately before engaging in NSSI compared to after NSSI. Furthermore, adults who engage in NSSI have lower levels of met-enkephalin (P < .01), an opioid growth factor, compared to adults who have never engaged in NSSI.²²

Dynamic risk factors

Individuals who engage in NSSI often report substance use, but there is little data on whether substance use is an independent risk factor for NSSI. Although limited, recent evidence suggests illicit substance use in both adolescents⁴¹ and adults⁵⁰ increases risk for NSSI. Richardson et al⁵⁰ found that the use of barbiturates, opiates, and sedatives significantly increased the frequency of NSSI, whereas use of marijuana, phencyclidine, and medications used to treat anxiety significantly increased the severity of NSSI. A smaller study conducted in South Africa found that individuals who engage in substance use and NSSI were more likely to be male (P < .001).⁵¹

Eating disorders and NSSI are highly comorbid.⁵² The lifetime prevalence of NSSI among individuals with eating disorders ranges from 20.6%to 37.1%.^52,53 Results are inconsistent regarding which eating disorders (if any) are greater risk factors for NSSI. One study found that the prevalence of NSSI in patients with bulimia nervosa was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.9% to 39.1%) vs 21.8% in patients with anorexia nervosa (95% CI, 18.5% to 25.6%).⁵⁴ Another study found that individuals with binge eating/purging–type eating disorders reported engaging in NSSI more frequently than those with other types of eating disorders.⁵⁵ Among patients with eating disorders who reported NSSI, risk factors included younger age of onset, more negative self-evaluation, more impulsive behavior, concomitant substance use, history of suicide attempts, childhood abuse, and peer aggression.^53,55 Body image dissatisfaction and self-criticism, even in individuals not formally diagnosed with an eating disorder, are small but significant predictors of NSSI.^56,57

Mood disorders have also been linked to NSSI.^58,59 Anxiety disorders (including generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, and agoraphobia) as well as anxiety-related disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder have been significantly associated with NSSI (P < .001), but this relationship decreased in strength when mood instability was removed as a confounder.⁵⁸ Among patients with anxiety and anxiety-related disorders, panic disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have shown the strongest association with NSSI, with pooled aORs of 2.67 and 2.06, respectively.⁵⁹

Recent studies have examined the association of other mental health disorders and symptoms with NSSI, including psychosis⁶⁰ and dissociative symptoms.⁶¹ One study found that paranoia, thought control, and auditory hallucinations were significantly associated with NSSI⁶⁰; however, after controlling for concomitant BPD, only paranoia was significantly associated with NSSI.⁶⁰ Individuals diagnosed with dissociative disorders were more likely than patients without such disorders to endorse NSSI and suicide attempts.⁶¹

Continue to: Emotional dysregulation...

Emotional dysregulation (EDR)—defined as difficulty understanding, recognizing, and managing one’s emotions—has been researched extensively in relation to NSSI.⁶² A recent review that included studies of both adolescents and adults reported a significant association between EDR and NSSI, with an OR of 2.40 (95% CI, 2.01 to 2.86).⁶² A larger effect size was observed between EDR and lifetime NSSI (OR 3.21; 95% CI, 2.63 to 3.91) compared to past-year NSSI (OR 2.32; 95% CI, 1.84 to 2.92).⁶² Patient age, sex, and sample type (clinical vs community) were not significant moderators of strength between the reported associations.⁶²

Studies examining intimate partner violence (IPV) and NSSI have found that young adults who engage in IPV (both as victims and as perpetrators) are more likely to report NSSI.^63-65 Researchers have proposed that anxiety over abandonment may explain this relationship.⁶⁴ A recent study found that individuals with bidirectional IPV (ie, both victimization and perpetration) engaged in NSSI at a higher prevalence than those engaging in unidirectional IPV or no IPV.⁶⁵ This suggests that relationship violence in general (rather than just being a victim of IPV) may be a risk factor for NSSI.⁶⁵

Finally, studies suggest that adolescents and adults who have sleep problems (insomnia, short sleep duration, long sleep onset latency, waking after sleep onset, and poor quality sleep) are more likely to report self-harm or NSSI than those without sleep problems.^42,66 In adults, this relationship is partially mediated by depressive symptoms, EDR, and PTSD.⁶⁶ In adolescents, depressive symptoms are a mediator for this relationship.⁴²

Bottom Line

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a significant health concern due to its association with suicide attempts. Although there are similarities in NSSI risk factors between adolescents and adults, there are also important differences. Understanding these differences is necessary to develop appropriate treatment plans.

Related Resources

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. https://afsp.org/
• Cipriano A, Cella S, Cotrufo P. Nonsuicidal self-injury: a systematic review. Front Psych. 2017;8:1946. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.01946
• Gold LH, Frierson RL, eds. Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2020.

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Common forms of NSSI include cutting, burning, scraping/scratching skin, biting, hitting, and interfering with wound healing.² Functional theories suggest that NSSI temporarily alleviates overwhelming negative emotions and can produce feelings of relief, resulting in a reinforcing effect.³

NSSI has been shown to be a risk factor for future suicide attempts.⁴ A 2018 study found that NSSI is associated with an increased risk of subsequent suicidal ideation (odds ratio [OR] 2.8), suicide plan (OR 3.0), and suicide attempt (OR 5.5).⁵ NSSI is also associated with individuals who had suicidal ideation and formed a suicide plan, and individuals who had a suicide plan and attempted suicide (ORs 1.7 to 2.1).⁵ Another study found that 70% of adolescents who engage in NSSI have attempted suicide during their lifetime, and 55% have multiple attempts.⁶

Given the overlap between suicide attempts and NSSI, performing a thorough suicide risk assessment (which is beyond the scope of this article) is crucial. This article describes the static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents and adults, which can help us perform a suicide risk assessment and allow us to formulate an appropriate treatment plan that includes safety-based interventions.

NSSI risk factors for adolescents

From developing sexual identity and undergoing puberty to achieving increased independence from their parents and developing a sense of autonomy, adolescents undergo many biological, psychological, and social changes before reaching adulthood.⁷ Data suggest that NSSI often begins in adolescence, with a typical onset at age 13 or 14.³ Community studies show that one-third to one-half of adolescents in the United States have engaged in NSSI.^8,9 Previously, NSSI during adolescence was associated with 3 major diagnostic categories: eating disorders, developmental disabilities, and borderline personality disorder (BPD).¹⁰ However, recent data suggest that NSSI is also common outside of these categories. Here we describe static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents (Table 1^11-42). Table 2^11-42 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adolescents that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Female adolescents and adults engage in NSSI at higher rates than males. The difference is larger in clinical populations compared to the general population.¹¹

A large portion of research about NSSI has been conducted in studies in which the majority of participants were White.¹² Most studies report a higher prevalence of NSSI among non-Hispanic White youth,¹³ but some suggest other ethnic groups may also experience high rates of self-harm and NSSI.^13-15 Several studies have demonstrated high rates of self-harm among South Asian adult females compared with White adult females, but this difference may be less pronounced in adolescents.¹⁴ One study in the United Kingdom found that White females age 10 to 14 had higher rates of self-harm compared to South Asian females,¹⁴ while another found that risk and rates of self-harm in young South Asian people varied by city and country of origin.¹⁵ Young Black females¹⁵ and young Black males¹³ also may be at an increased risk of self-harm. One review found that Black females were more likely to self-harm than Asian or White groups.¹⁵

Several studies suggest that sexual minority adolescents (SMA) (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) are at greater risk for NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ SMA have been shown to engage in a significantly greater frequency of NSSI and more types of NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ Furthermore, on the Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury, SMA self-reported using NSSI for intrapersonal functions (eg, for affect regulation, antisuicide, self-punishment) significantly greater than their heterosexual peers; however, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups on interpersonal functions (eg, autonomy, interpersonal boundaries, peer bonding, sensation-seeking).¹⁶

Continue to: Transgender and gender nonconfirming...

Transgender and gender nonconfirming (GNC) youth are at a particularly high risk for NSSI; 30% to 45.5% of transgender adolescents report self-injury.¹⁷ Factors shown to distinguish transgender/GNC youth who engage in NSSI from those who do not include having a mental health problem, depression, running away from home, substance use, lower self-esteem/greater self-criticism, experiencing transphobia victimization, and having more interpersonal problems.^18,19 Among transgender/GNC youth, those whose biological sex is female are more likely to report NSSI than those whose biological sex is male (ie, transgendered adolescent males are more likely to report NSSI than transgendered adolescent females).^18,19

Most forms of childhood maltreatment have been associated with NSSI. In a recently published review, Liu et al²⁰ found that childhood maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and physical neglect) was associated with an increased risk for NSSI. However, conflicting evidence suggests that when confounders are removed, only childhood emotional abuse was directly associated with NSSI.²¹ Current evidence is modest for childhood emotional neglect as a risk factor for NSSI.²⁰

Increasing research is investigating the biological processes that may be implicated in NSSI. Some studies suggest that endogenous opioids,²² monoamine neurotransmitters,²² and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis²³ may play a role in NSSI. Compared to healthy controls, adolescents engaging in NSSI have been shown to have lower pain intensity (P = .036), higher pain thresholds (P = .040), and lower beta-endorphins (endogenous opioid hormones involved in mediating stress and pain) (P = .002).²⁴ There may be alterations in the HPA axis among adolescents who engage in NSSI, more specifically stronger cortisol awakening responses.²³ Both functional and standard MRI have been used to study the neurobiology of NSSI. One study demonstrated differences in functional connectivity between brain areas linked to neuroregulation of emotions in adolescents who engage in NSSI,²⁵ while another found volume reduction in the insula of these adolescents, which suggests a possible neurobiological reason for impulsivity and the increased risk of suicidal behavior.²⁶

Dynamic risk factors

Research has repeatedly shown bullying is a risk factor for NSSI.²⁷ One study found that younger children who were victimized reported significantly more NSSI than older children.²⁸ New data suggest that perpetrators of bullying are also at risk for deliberate self-harm behavior (SHB), which this study defined as a behavior that is intended to cause self-harm but without suicidal intent and having a nonfatal outcome.²⁹ Victims of cyberbullying also are at a greater risk for self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and suicide attempt.³⁰ To a lesser extent, cyberbullying perpetrators are at greater risk for suicidal behaviors and suicidal ideation.³⁰ Bullying is a risk factor for NSSI not only in adolescence, but also in adulthood. Lereya et al³¹ found that victims of bullying in childhood and early adolescence were more likely to have mental health problems (including anxiety and depression) and more likely to engage in SHB—which this study defined as hurting oneself on purpose in any way—as adults.

The effects of internet use on adolescents’ mental health also has been investigated. A recent review that explored the relationship between all types of internet use (general use, internet addiction, social media, self-harm websites, forums, etc) and SHB/suicidal behavior found that young people with internet addiction, high levels of internet use, and a tendency to view websites with self-harm or suicidal content were at higher risk of engaging in SHB/suicidal behavior.³² This study did not use a specific definition for SHB or suicidal behavior.³²

Continue to: Membership in certain youth...

Membership in certain youth subcultures (eg, emo or goth) has been evaluated as potential risk factors for depression and deliberate self-harm. Bowes et al³³ found that for each unit increase in goth affiliation (not at all, not very much, somewhat, more than somewhat, very much), youth were 1.52 times more likely to engage in SHB; these researchers also reported a dose-response association between goth identification and future SHB. This study asked participants if they have ever tried to harm or hurt themselves in any manner, but did not distinguish between individuals who had harmed themselves with and without suicidal intent.³³

Personality traits such as impulsiveness and loneliness have been linked to NSSI among adolescents.^34,35 A recent study found that adolescents who met the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for NSSI scored higher on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, specifically in measures of:

• motor impulsiveness (ie, acting without thinking)
• attentional impulsiveness (ie, making decisions quickly)
• impulsiveness due to lack of planning (ie, failure to plan for the future).³⁴

This study also found that adolescents who identified as being lonely based on scores on the Brazilian Loneliness Scale were at a higher risk for NSSI.³⁴

A recent systematic review (32 studies) and meta-analysis (9 studies) found that school absenteeism was associated with a risk of self-harm (pooled aOR 1.37, P = .01) and suicidal ideation (pooled aOR 1.20, P = .03).³⁶ This study suggested that school absenteeism, an important marker of social exclusion, was associated with both SHB and suicidal ideation in young people.³⁶ It defined SHB as any act of self-injury or self-poisoning, regardless of intent.³⁶

Finally, family-related factors have been associated with an increased risk of NSSI. One study of 11,814 children age 9 and 10 revealed that high family conflict (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14) and low parental monitoring (OR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98) were associated with NSSI.³⁷ A smaller, community-based study found that adolescents with NSSI reported significantly less maternal support and warmth than nonclinical controls, but a cause-and-effect relationship has not yet been determined.³⁸ Parental history alone may influence adolescents’ risk of NSSI. A study that included nearly 76,000 youth found that adolescents with perceived parental alcohol problems had higher odds of self-injury, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.³⁹ Adolescents exposed to maternal or paternal adversities were also at a higher risk of self-harm (hazard ratio 1.5 to 5.4 among males, 1.7 to 3.9 among females).⁴⁰

Continue to: NSSI risk factors for adults

NSSI risk factors for adults

Although data regarding the prevalence of NSSI in adults are lacking, available studies report a 12-month prevalence of 0.9%² and a lifetime prevalence of 5.5% to 5.9%.⁴³ There is a significant overlap in risk factors for NSSI in adolescent and adult populations, but there are also many important differences. The static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adults are described in Table 3.^44-66 Table 4^44-66 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adults that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Research findings regarding the prevalence of NSSI based on gender are varied. For years, it has been believed that women are more likely to engage in NSSI than men. Recent meta-analyses that have examined this relationship closely found that the gender difference is larger for clinical samples compared to community samples and more pronounced in younger individuals.¹¹

As is the case with adolescents, there may be ethnic variations in rates of self-harm and NSSI among adults. A 2013 study by Chesin et al⁴⁴ found that Asian and White young adults experience higher rates of NSSI than their Hispanic and Black counterparts. Evidence suggests that relative rates of self-harm for older South Asian adults are lower than in older White adults.¹⁵

Compared to heterosexual or cisgender individuals, members of sexual and gender minorities have a higher past-year and lifetime prevalence of NSSI.⁴⁵ One study found that the weighted effect size between sexual orientation and NSSI had an OR of 3 (95% CI, 2.46 to 3.66), indicating a medium-to-large effect.⁴⁶ Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at the highest risk for NSSI when compared to members of other sexual and gender minority groups.⁴⁵ One review that included mostly cross-sectional studies found that individuals identifying as bisexual had up to 6 times the odds of engaging in NSSI when compared to those of other sexual orientations.⁴⁷

Incarceration is a risk factor for NSSI. The rates of NSSI in criminal justice settings are higher (up to 61%) than in the general adult population (approximately 4%).⁴⁸ Recent research found that NSSI serves similar functions in correctional and non-correctional settings, primarily to regulate emotions.⁴⁸ However, there is also evidence of higher rates of NSSI being motivated by an attempt to influence the environment (ie, engaging in NSSI in order to be transferred to another prison unit) compared to NSSI in community settings.⁴⁸

Continue to: Though less robust than data...

Though less robust than data published regarding adolescents, the role of biological processes in adults engaging in NSSI has also been studied. A 2021 study by Störkel et al⁴⁹ found that levels of salivary beta-endorphins were significantly lower in adults immediately before engaging in NSSI compared to after NSSI. Furthermore, adults who engage in NSSI have lower levels of met-enkephalin (P < .01), an opioid growth factor, compared to adults who have never engaged in NSSI.²²

Dynamic risk factors

Individuals who engage in NSSI often report substance use, but there is little data on whether substance use is an independent risk factor for NSSI. Although limited, recent evidence suggests illicit substance use in both adolescents⁴¹ and adults⁵⁰ increases risk for NSSI. Richardson et al⁵⁰ found that the use of barbiturates, opiates, and sedatives significantly increased the frequency of NSSI, whereas use of marijuana, phencyclidine, and medications used to treat anxiety significantly increased the severity of NSSI. A smaller study conducted in South Africa found that individuals who engage in substance use and NSSI were more likely to be male (P < .001).⁵¹

Eating disorders and NSSI are highly comorbid.⁵² The lifetime prevalence of NSSI among individuals with eating disorders ranges from 20.6%to 37.1%.^52,53 Results are inconsistent regarding which eating disorders (if any) are greater risk factors for NSSI. One study found that the prevalence of NSSI in patients with bulimia nervosa was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.9% to 39.1%) vs 21.8% in patients with anorexia nervosa (95% CI, 18.5% to 25.6%).⁵⁴ Another study found that individuals with binge eating/purging–type eating disorders reported engaging in NSSI more frequently than those with other types of eating disorders.⁵⁵ Among patients with eating disorders who reported NSSI, risk factors included younger age of onset, more negative self-evaluation, more impulsive behavior, concomitant substance use, history of suicide attempts, childhood abuse, and peer aggression.^53,55 Body image dissatisfaction and self-criticism, even in individuals not formally diagnosed with an eating disorder, are small but significant predictors of NSSI.^56,57

Mood disorders have also been linked to NSSI.^58,59 Anxiety disorders (including generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, and agoraphobia) as well as anxiety-related disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder have been significantly associated with NSSI (P < .001), but this relationship decreased in strength when mood instability was removed as a confounder.⁵⁸ Among patients with anxiety and anxiety-related disorders, panic disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have shown the strongest association with NSSI, with pooled aORs of 2.67 and 2.06, respectively.⁵⁹

Recent studies have examined the association of other mental health disorders and symptoms with NSSI, including psychosis⁶⁰ and dissociative symptoms.⁶¹ One study found that paranoia, thought control, and auditory hallucinations were significantly associated with NSSI⁶⁰; however, after controlling for concomitant BPD, only paranoia was significantly associated with NSSI.⁶⁰ Individuals diagnosed with dissociative disorders were more likely than patients without such disorders to endorse NSSI and suicide attempts.⁶¹

Continue to: Emotional dysregulation...

Emotional dysregulation (EDR)—defined as difficulty understanding, recognizing, and managing one’s emotions—has been researched extensively in relation to NSSI.⁶² A recent review that included studies of both adolescents and adults reported a significant association between EDR and NSSI, with an OR of 2.40 (95% CI, 2.01 to 2.86).⁶² A larger effect size was observed between EDR and lifetime NSSI (OR 3.21; 95% CI, 2.63 to 3.91) compared to past-year NSSI (OR 2.32; 95% CI, 1.84 to 2.92).⁶² Patient age, sex, and sample type (clinical vs community) were not significant moderators of strength between the reported associations.⁶²

Studies examining intimate partner violence (IPV) and NSSI have found that young adults who engage in IPV (both as victims and as perpetrators) are more likely to report NSSI.^63-65 Researchers have proposed that anxiety over abandonment may explain this relationship.⁶⁴ A recent study found that individuals with bidirectional IPV (ie, both victimization and perpetration) engaged in NSSI at a higher prevalence than those engaging in unidirectional IPV or no IPV.⁶⁵ This suggests that relationship violence in general (rather than just being a victim of IPV) may be a risk factor for NSSI.⁶⁵

Finally, studies suggest that adolescents and adults who have sleep problems (insomnia, short sleep duration, long sleep onset latency, waking after sleep onset, and poor quality sleep) are more likely to report self-harm or NSSI than those without sleep problems.^42,66 In adults, this relationship is partially mediated by depressive symptoms, EDR, and PTSD.⁶⁶ In adolescents, depressive symptoms are a mediator for this relationship.⁴²

Bottom Line

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a significant health concern due to its association with suicide attempts. Although there are similarities in NSSI risk factors between adolescents and adults, there are also important differences. Understanding these differences is necessary to develop appropriate treatment plans.

Related Resources

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. https://afsp.org/
• Cipriano A, Cella S, Cotrufo P. Nonsuicidal self-injury: a systematic review. Front Psych. 2017;8:1946. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.01946
• Gold LH, Frierson RL, eds. Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2020.

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the direct and deliberate destruction of body tissue without intent to die.¹ Common forms of NSSI include cutting, burning, scraping/scratching skin, biting, hitting, and interfering with wound healing.² Functional theories suggest that NSSI temporarily alleviates overwhelming negative emotions and can produce feelings of relief, resulting in a reinforcing effect.³

NSSI has been shown to be a risk factor for future suicide attempts.⁴ A 2018 study found that NSSI is associated with an increased risk of subsequent suicidal ideation (odds ratio [OR] 2.8), suicide plan (OR 3.0), and suicide attempt (OR 5.5).⁵ NSSI is also associated with individuals who had suicidal ideation and formed a suicide plan, and individuals who had a suicide plan and attempted suicide (ORs 1.7 to 2.1).⁵ Another study found that 70% of adolescents who engage in NSSI have attempted suicide during their lifetime, and 55% have multiple attempts.⁶

Given the overlap between suicide attempts and NSSI, performing a thorough suicide risk assessment (which is beyond the scope of this article) is crucial. This article describes the static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents and adults, which can help us perform a suicide risk assessment and allow us to formulate an appropriate treatment plan that includes safety-based interventions.

NSSI risk factors for adolescents

From developing sexual identity and undergoing puberty to achieving increased independence from their parents and developing a sense of autonomy, adolescents undergo many biological, psychological, and social changes before reaching adulthood.⁷ Data suggest that NSSI often begins in adolescence, with a typical onset at age 13 or 14.³ Community studies show that one-third to one-half of adolescents in the United States have engaged in NSSI.^8,9 Previously, NSSI during adolescence was associated with 3 major diagnostic categories: eating disorders, developmental disabilities, and borderline personality disorder (BPD).¹⁰ However, recent data suggest that NSSI is also common outside of these categories. Here we describe static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adolescents (Table 1^11-42). Table 2^11-42 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adolescents that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Female adolescents and adults engage in NSSI at higher rates than males. The difference is larger in clinical populations compared to the general population.¹¹

A large portion of research about NSSI has been conducted in studies in which the majority of participants were White.¹² Most studies report a higher prevalence of NSSI among non-Hispanic White youth,¹³ but some suggest other ethnic groups may also experience high rates of self-harm and NSSI.^13-15 Several studies have demonstrated high rates of self-harm among South Asian adult females compared with White adult females, but this difference may be less pronounced in adolescents.¹⁴ One study in the United Kingdom found that White females age 10 to 14 had higher rates of self-harm compared to South Asian females,¹⁴ while another found that risk and rates of self-harm in young South Asian people varied by city and country of origin.¹⁵ Young Black females¹⁵ and young Black males¹³ also may be at an increased risk of self-harm. One review found that Black females were more likely to self-harm than Asian or White groups.¹⁵

Several studies suggest that sexual minority adolescents (SMA) (eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) are at greater risk for NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ SMA have been shown to engage in a significantly greater frequency of NSSI and more types of NSSI than heterosexual adolescents.¹⁶ Furthermore, on the Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury, SMA self-reported using NSSI for intrapersonal functions (eg, for affect regulation, antisuicide, self-punishment) significantly greater than their heterosexual peers; however, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups on interpersonal functions (eg, autonomy, interpersonal boundaries, peer bonding, sensation-seeking).¹⁶

Continue to: Transgender and gender nonconfirming...

Transgender and gender nonconfirming (GNC) youth are at a particularly high risk for NSSI; 30% to 45.5% of transgender adolescents report self-injury.¹⁷ Factors shown to distinguish transgender/GNC youth who engage in NSSI from those who do not include having a mental health problem, depression, running away from home, substance use, lower self-esteem/greater self-criticism, experiencing transphobia victimization, and having more interpersonal problems.^18,19 Among transgender/GNC youth, those whose biological sex is female are more likely to report NSSI than those whose biological sex is male (ie, transgendered adolescent males are more likely to report NSSI than transgendered adolescent females).^18,19

Most forms of childhood maltreatment have been associated with NSSI. In a recently published review, Liu et al²⁰ found that childhood maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and physical neglect) was associated with an increased risk for NSSI. However, conflicting evidence suggests that when confounders are removed, only childhood emotional abuse was directly associated with NSSI.²¹ Current evidence is modest for childhood emotional neglect as a risk factor for NSSI.²⁰

Increasing research is investigating the biological processes that may be implicated in NSSI. Some studies suggest that endogenous opioids,²² monoamine neurotransmitters,²² and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis²³ may play a role in NSSI. Compared to healthy controls, adolescents engaging in NSSI have been shown to have lower pain intensity (P = .036), higher pain thresholds (P = .040), and lower beta-endorphins (endogenous opioid hormones involved in mediating stress and pain) (P = .002).²⁴ There may be alterations in the HPA axis among adolescents who engage in NSSI, more specifically stronger cortisol awakening responses.²³ Both functional and standard MRI have been used to study the neurobiology of NSSI. One study demonstrated differences in functional connectivity between brain areas linked to neuroregulation of emotions in adolescents who engage in NSSI,²⁵ while another found volume reduction in the insula of these adolescents, which suggests a possible neurobiological reason for impulsivity and the increased risk of suicidal behavior.²⁶

Dynamic risk factors

Research has repeatedly shown bullying is a risk factor for NSSI.²⁷ One study found that younger children who were victimized reported significantly more NSSI than older children.²⁸ New data suggest that perpetrators of bullying are also at risk for deliberate self-harm behavior (SHB), which this study defined as a behavior that is intended to cause self-harm but without suicidal intent and having a nonfatal outcome.²⁹ Victims of cyberbullying also are at a greater risk for self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and suicide attempt.³⁰ To a lesser extent, cyberbullying perpetrators are at greater risk for suicidal behaviors and suicidal ideation.³⁰ Bullying is a risk factor for NSSI not only in adolescence, but also in adulthood. Lereya et al³¹ found that victims of bullying in childhood and early adolescence were more likely to have mental health problems (including anxiety and depression) and more likely to engage in SHB—which this study defined as hurting oneself on purpose in any way—as adults.

The effects of internet use on adolescents’ mental health also has been investigated. A recent review that explored the relationship between all types of internet use (general use, internet addiction, social media, self-harm websites, forums, etc) and SHB/suicidal behavior found that young people with internet addiction, high levels of internet use, and a tendency to view websites with self-harm or suicidal content were at higher risk of engaging in SHB/suicidal behavior.³² This study did not use a specific definition for SHB or suicidal behavior.³²

Continue to: Membership in certain youth...

Membership in certain youth subcultures (eg, emo or goth) has been evaluated as potential risk factors for depression and deliberate self-harm. Bowes et al³³ found that for each unit increase in goth affiliation (not at all, not very much, somewhat, more than somewhat, very much), youth were 1.52 times more likely to engage in SHB; these researchers also reported a dose-response association between goth identification and future SHB. This study asked participants if they have ever tried to harm or hurt themselves in any manner, but did not distinguish between individuals who had harmed themselves with and without suicidal intent.³³

Personality traits such as impulsiveness and loneliness have been linked to NSSI among adolescents.^34,35 A recent study found that adolescents who met the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for NSSI scored higher on the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, specifically in measures of:

• motor impulsiveness (ie, acting without thinking)
• attentional impulsiveness (ie, making decisions quickly)
• impulsiveness due to lack of planning (ie, failure to plan for the future).³⁴

This study also found that adolescents who identified as being lonely based on scores on the Brazilian Loneliness Scale were at a higher risk for NSSI.³⁴

A recent systematic review (32 studies) and meta-analysis (9 studies) found that school absenteeism was associated with a risk of self-harm (pooled aOR 1.37, P = .01) and suicidal ideation (pooled aOR 1.20, P = .03).³⁶ This study suggested that school absenteeism, an important marker of social exclusion, was associated with both SHB and suicidal ideation in young people.³⁶ It defined SHB as any act of self-injury or self-poisoning, regardless of intent.³⁶

Finally, family-related factors have been associated with an increased risk of NSSI. One study of 11,814 children age 9 and 10 revealed that high family conflict (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.14) and low parental monitoring (OR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.98) were associated with NSSI.³⁷ A smaller, community-based study found that adolescents with NSSI reported significantly less maternal support and warmth than nonclinical controls, but a cause-and-effect relationship has not yet been determined.³⁸ Parental history alone may influence adolescents’ risk of NSSI. A study that included nearly 76,000 youth found that adolescents with perceived parental alcohol problems had higher odds of self-injury, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.³⁹ Adolescents exposed to maternal or paternal adversities were also at a higher risk of self-harm (hazard ratio 1.5 to 5.4 among males, 1.7 to 3.9 among females).⁴⁰

Continue to: NSSI risk factors for adults

NSSI risk factors for adults

Although data regarding the prevalence of NSSI in adults are lacking, available studies report a 12-month prevalence of 0.9%² and a lifetime prevalence of 5.5% to 5.9%.⁴³ There is a significant overlap in risk factors for NSSI in adolescent and adult populations, but there are also many important differences. The static and dynamic risk factors for NSSI in adults are described in Table 3.^44-66 Table 4^44-66 summarizes the studies of NSSI in adults that we reviewed.

Static risk factors

Research findings regarding the prevalence of NSSI based on gender are varied. For years, it has been believed that women are more likely to engage in NSSI than men. Recent meta-analyses that have examined this relationship closely found that the gender difference is larger for clinical samples compared to community samples and more pronounced in younger individuals.¹¹

As is the case with adolescents, there may be ethnic variations in rates of self-harm and NSSI among adults. A 2013 study by Chesin et al⁴⁴ found that Asian and White young adults experience higher rates of NSSI than their Hispanic and Black counterparts. Evidence suggests that relative rates of self-harm for older South Asian adults are lower than in older White adults.¹⁵

Compared to heterosexual or cisgender individuals, members of sexual and gender minorities have a higher past-year and lifetime prevalence of NSSI.⁴⁵ One study found that the weighted effect size between sexual orientation and NSSI had an OR of 3 (95% CI, 2.46 to 3.66), indicating a medium-to-large effect.⁴⁶ Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at the highest risk for NSSI when compared to members of other sexual and gender minority groups.⁴⁵ One review that included mostly cross-sectional studies found that individuals identifying as bisexual had up to 6 times the odds of engaging in NSSI when compared to those of other sexual orientations.⁴⁷

Incarceration is a risk factor for NSSI. The rates of NSSI in criminal justice settings are higher (up to 61%) than in the general adult population (approximately 4%).⁴⁸ Recent research found that NSSI serves similar functions in correctional and non-correctional settings, primarily to regulate emotions.⁴⁸ However, there is also evidence of higher rates of NSSI being motivated by an attempt to influence the environment (ie, engaging in NSSI in order to be transferred to another prison unit) compared to NSSI in community settings.⁴⁸

Continue to: Though less robust than data...

Though less robust than data published regarding adolescents, the role of biological processes in adults engaging in NSSI has also been studied. A 2021 study by Störkel et al⁴⁹ found that levels of salivary beta-endorphins were significantly lower in adults immediately before engaging in NSSI compared to after NSSI. Furthermore, adults who engage in NSSI have lower levels of met-enkephalin (P < .01), an opioid growth factor, compared to adults who have never engaged in NSSI.²²

Dynamic risk factors

Individuals who engage in NSSI often report substance use, but there is little data on whether substance use is an independent risk factor for NSSI. Although limited, recent evidence suggests illicit substance use in both adolescents⁴¹ and adults⁵⁰ increases risk for NSSI. Richardson et al⁵⁰ found that the use of barbiturates, opiates, and sedatives significantly increased the frequency of NSSI, whereas use of marijuana, phencyclidine, and medications used to treat anxiety significantly increased the severity of NSSI. A smaller study conducted in South Africa found that individuals who engage in substance use and NSSI were more likely to be male (P < .001).⁵¹

Eating disorders and NSSI are highly comorbid.⁵² The lifetime prevalence of NSSI among individuals with eating disorders ranges from 20.6%to 37.1%.^52,53 Results are inconsistent regarding which eating disorders (if any) are greater risk factors for NSSI. One study found that the prevalence of NSSI in patients with bulimia nervosa was 32.7% (95% CI, 26.9% to 39.1%) vs 21.8% in patients with anorexia nervosa (95% CI, 18.5% to 25.6%).⁵⁴ Another study found that individuals with binge eating/purging–type eating disorders reported engaging in NSSI more frequently than those with other types of eating disorders.⁵⁵ Among patients with eating disorders who reported NSSI, risk factors included younger age of onset, more negative self-evaluation, more impulsive behavior, concomitant substance use, history of suicide attempts, childhood abuse, and peer aggression.^53,55 Body image dissatisfaction and self-criticism, even in individuals not formally diagnosed with an eating disorder, are small but significant predictors of NSSI.^56,57

Mood disorders have also been linked to NSSI.^58,59 Anxiety disorders (including generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, and agoraphobia) as well as anxiety-related disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder have been significantly associated with NSSI (P < .001), but this relationship decreased in strength when mood instability was removed as a confounder.⁵⁸ Among patients with anxiety and anxiety-related disorders, panic disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have shown the strongest association with NSSI, with pooled aORs of 2.67 and 2.06, respectively.⁵⁹

Recent studies have examined the association of other mental health disorders and symptoms with NSSI, including psychosis⁶⁰ and dissociative symptoms.⁶¹ One study found that paranoia, thought control, and auditory hallucinations were significantly associated with NSSI⁶⁰; however, after controlling for concomitant BPD, only paranoia was significantly associated with NSSI.⁶⁰ Individuals diagnosed with dissociative disorders were more likely than patients without such disorders to endorse NSSI and suicide attempts.⁶¹

Continue to: Emotional dysregulation...

Emotional dysregulation (EDR)—defined as difficulty understanding, recognizing, and managing one’s emotions—has been researched extensively in relation to NSSI.⁶² A recent review that included studies of both adolescents and adults reported a significant association between EDR and NSSI, with an OR of 2.40 (95% CI, 2.01 to 2.86).⁶² A larger effect size was observed between EDR and lifetime NSSI (OR 3.21; 95% CI, 2.63 to 3.91) compared to past-year NSSI (OR 2.32; 95% CI, 1.84 to 2.92).⁶² Patient age, sex, and sample type (clinical vs community) were not significant moderators of strength between the reported associations.⁶²

Studies examining intimate partner violence (IPV) and NSSI have found that young adults who engage in IPV (both as victims and as perpetrators) are more likely to report NSSI.^63-65 Researchers have proposed that anxiety over abandonment may explain this relationship.⁶⁴ A recent study found that individuals with bidirectional IPV (ie, both victimization and perpetration) engaged in NSSI at a higher prevalence than those engaging in unidirectional IPV or no IPV.⁶⁵ This suggests that relationship violence in general (rather than just being a victim of IPV) may be a risk factor for NSSI.⁶⁵

Finally, studies suggest that adolescents and adults who have sleep problems (insomnia, short sleep duration, long sleep onset latency, waking after sleep onset, and poor quality sleep) are more likely to report self-harm or NSSI than those without sleep problems.^42,66 In adults, this relationship is partially mediated by depressive symptoms, EDR, and PTSD.⁶⁶ In adolescents, depressive symptoms are a mediator for this relationship.⁴²

Bottom Line

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a significant health concern due to its association with suicide attempts. Although there are similarities in NSSI risk factors between adolescents and adults, there are also important differences. Understanding these differences is necessary to develop appropriate treatment plans.

Related Resources

• American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. https://afsp.org/
• Cipriano A, Cella S, Cotrufo P. Nonsuicidal self-injury: a systematic review. Front Psych. 2017;8:1946. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.01946
• Gold LH, Frierson RL, eds. Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management. 3rd ed. American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2020.

Hidden within routine presentations of first-episode psychosis is a rare subpopulation whose symptoms are mediated by an autoimmune process for which proper treatment differs significantly from standard care for typical psychotic illness. In this article, we present a hypothetical case and describe how to assess if a patient has an elevated probability of autoimmune encephalitis, determine what diagnostics or medication-induced effects to consider, and identify unresolved questions about best practices.

CASE REPORT

Bizarre behavior and isolation

Ms. L, age 21, is brought to the emergency department (ED) by her college roommate after exhibiting out-of-character behavior and gradual self-isolation over the last 2 months. Her roommate noticed that she had been spending more time isolated in her dorm room and remaining in bed into the early afternoon, though she does not appear to be asleep. Ms. L’s mother is concerned about her daughter’s uncharacteristic refusal to travel home for a family event. Ms. L expresses concern about the intentions of her research preceptor, and recalls messages from the association of colleges telling her to “change her future.” Ms. L hears voices telling her who she can and cannot trust. In the ED, she says she has a headache, experiences mild dizziness while standing, and reports having a brief upper respiratory illness at the end of last semester. Otherwise, a medical review of systems is negative.

Although the etiology of first-episode psychosis can be numerous or unknown, many psychiatrists feel comfortable with the initial diagnostic for this type of clinical presentation. However, for some clinicians, it may be challenging to feel confident in making a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis.

Autoimmune encephalitis is a family of syndromes caused by autoantibodies targeting either intracellular or extracellular neuronal antigens. Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis is one of the most common forms of autoimmune encephalitis that can present with symptoms of psychosis.¹

In this article, we focus on anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and use the term interchangeably with autoimmune encephalitis for 2 reasons. First, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis can present with psychotic symptoms as the only symptoms (prior to cognitive or neurologic manifestations) or can present with psychotic symptoms as the main indicator (with other symptoms that are more subtle and possibly missed). Second, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis often occurs in young adults, which is when it is common to see the onset of a primary psychotic illness. These 2 factors make it likely that these cases will come into the evaluative sphere of psychiatrists. We give special attention to features of cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis confirmed with antineuronal antibodies in the CSF, as it has emerged that antibodies in the serum can be nonspecific and nonpathogenic.^2,3

What does anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis look like?

Symptoms of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis resemble those of a primary psychotic disorder, which can make it challenging to differentiate between the 2 conditions, and might cause the correct diagnosis to be missed. Pollak et al⁴ proposed that psychiatrically confusing presentations that don’t clearly match an identifiable psychotic disorder should raise a red flag for an autoimmune etiology. However, studies often fail to describe the specific psychiatric features of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and thus provide little practical evidence to guide diagnosis. In some of the largest studies of patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, psychiatric clinical findings are often combined into nonspecific headings such as “abnormal behavior” or “behavioral and cognitive” symptoms.⁵ Such groupings make this the most common clinical finding (95%)⁵ but make it difficult to discern particular clinical characteristics. Where available, specific symptoms identified across studies include agitation, aggression, changes in mood and/or irritability, insomnia, delusions, hallucinations, and occasionally catatonic features.^6,7 Attempts to identify specific psychiatric phenotypes distinct from primary psychotic illnesses have fallen short due to contradictory findings and lack of clinical practicality.⁸ One exception is the presence of catatonic features, which have been found in CSF-confirmed studies.² In contrast to the typical teaching that the hallucination modality (eg, visual or tactile) can be helpful in estimating the likelihood of a secondary psychosis (ie, drug-induced, neurodegenerative, or autoimmune), there does not appear to be a difference in hallucination modality between encephalitis and primary psychotic disorders.⁹

History and review of systems

Another red flag to consider is the rapidity of symptom presentation. Symptoms that progress within 3 months increase the likelihood that the patient has autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁰ Cases where collateral information indicates the psychotic episode was preceded by a long, subtle decline in school performance, social withdrawal, and attenuated psychotic symptoms typical of a schizophrenia prodrome are less likely to be an autoimmune psychosis.¹¹ A more delayed presentation does not entirely exclude autoimmune encephalitis; however, a viral-like prodrome before the onset of psychosis increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis. Such a prodrome may include fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁷

Continue to: Another indication is the presence...

Another indication is the presence of new seizures within 1 year of presenting with psychotic symptoms.¹⁰ The possibility of undiagnosed seizures should be considered in a patient with psychosis who has episodes of unresponsiveness, dissociative episodes, or seizure-like activity that is thought to be psychogenic but has not been fully evaluated. Seizures in autoimmune encephalitis involve deep structures in the brain and can be present without overt epileptiform activity on EEG, but rather causing only bilateral slowing that is often described as nonspecific.¹²

In a young patient presenting with first-episode psychosis, a recent diagnosis of cancer or abnormal finding in the ovaries increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.⁴ Historically, however, this type of medical history has been irrelevant to psychosis. Although rare, any person presenting with first-episode psychosis and a history of herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis should be evaluated for autoimmune encephalitis because anti-NMDA receptor antibodies have been reported to be present in approximately one-third of these patients.¹³ Finally, the report of focal neurologic symptoms, including neck stiffness or neck pain, should raise concern, although sensory, working memory, and cognitive deficits may be difficult to fully distinguish from common somatic and cognitive symptoms in a primary psychiatric presentation.

Table 1 lists 4 questions to ask patients who present with first-episode psychosis that may not usually be part of a typical evaluation.

CASE CONTINUED

Uncooperative with examination

In the ED, Ms. L’s heart rate is 101 beats per minute and her blood pressure is 102/72 mm Hg. Her body mass index (BMI) is 22, which suggests an approximate 8-pound weight loss since her BMI was last assessed. Ms. L responds to questions with 1- to 6-word sentences, without clear verbigeration. Though her speech is not pressured, it is of increased rate. Her gaze scans the room, occasionally becoming fixed for 5 to 10 seconds but is aborted by the interviewer’s comment on this behavior. Ms. L efficiently and accurately spells WORLD backwards, then asks “Why?” and refuses to engage in further cognitive testing, stating “Not doing that.” When the interviewer asks “Why not?” she responds “Not doing that.” Her cranial nerves are intact, and she refuses cerebellar testing or requests to assess tone. There are no observed stereotypies, posturing, or echopraxia.

While not necessary for a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, short-term memory loss is a common cognitive finding across studies.^5-7 A common clinical finding from a mental status exam is speech disorders, including (but not limited to) increased rates of speech or decreased verbal output.⁷ Autonomic instability—including tachycardia, markedly labile blood pressures, and orthostasis—all increase the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁴ Interpreting a patient’s vital sign changes can be confounded if they are agitated or anxious, or if they are taking an antipsychotic that produces adverse anticholinergic effects. However, vital sign abnormalities that precede medication administration or do not correlate with fluctuations in mental status increase suspicion for an autoimmune encephalitis.

Continue to: In the absence of the adverse effect...

In the absence of the adverse effect of a medication, orthostasis is uncommon in a well-hydrated young person. Some guidelines⁴ suggest that symptoms of catatonia should be considered a red flag for autoimmune encephalitis. According to the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, commonly identified features include immobility, staring, mutism, posturing, withdrawal, rigidity, and gegenhalten.¹⁵ Catatonia is common among patients with anti-NDMA receptor encephalitis, though it may not be initially present and could emerge later.² However, there are documented cases of autoimmune encephalitis where the patient had only isolated features of catatonia, such as echolalia or mutism.²

CASE CONTINUED

History helps narrow the diagnosis

Ms. L’s parents say their daughter has not had prior contact with a therapist or psychiatrist, previous psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, self-injury, or binging or purging behaviors. Ms. L’s paternal grandfather was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but he is currently employed, lives alone, and has not taken medication for many years. Her mother has hypothyroidism. Ms. L was born at full term via vaginal delivery without cardiac defects or a neonatal intensive care unit stay. Her mother said she did not have postpartum depression or anxiety, a complicated pregnancy, or exposure to tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Ms. L has no history of childhood seizures or head injury with loss of consciousness. She is an only child, born and raised in a house in a metropolitan area, walked at 13 months, did not require early intervention or speech therapy, and met normal language milestones.

She attended kindergarten at age 6 and progressed throughout public school without regressions in reading, writing, or behavioral manifestations, and did not require a 504 Plan or individualized education program. Ms. L graduated high school in the top 30% of her class, was socially active, and attended a local college. In college, she achieved honor roll, enrolled in a sorority, and was a part of a research lab. Her only medication is oral contraception. She consumes alcohol socially, and reports no cannabis, cigarette, or vaping use. Ms. L says she does not use hallucinogens, stimulants, opiates, or cocaine, and her roommate and family confirm this. She denies recent travel and is sexually active. Ms. L’s urinary and serum toxicology are unremarkable, human chorionic gonadotropin is undetectable, and her sodium level is 133 mEq/L. A measure of serum neutrophils is 6.8 x 10⁹/L and serum lymphocytes is 1.7 x 10⁹/L. Her parents adamantly request a Neurology consultation and further workup, including a lumbar puncture (LP), EEG, and brain imaging (MRI).

This information is useful in ruling out other potential causes of psychosis, such as substance-induced psychosis and neurodevelopmental disorders that can present with psychosis. Additionally, neurodevelopmental abnormalities and psychiatric prodromal symptoms are known precedents in individuals who develop a primary psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.¹⁶ A family history that includes a psychotic illness may increase the likelihood of a primary psychotic disorder in offspring; however, clinicians must also consider the accuracy of diagnosis in the family, as this can often be inaccurate or influenced by historical cultural bias. We recommend further elucidating the likelihood of a genetic predisposition to a primary psychotic disorder by clarifying familial medication history and functionality.

For example, the fact that Ms. L’s grandfather has not taken medication for many years and has a high degree of functioning and/or absence of cognitive deficits would lower our suspicion for an accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia (given the typical cognitive decline with untreated illness). Another piece of family history relevant to autoimmune encephalitis includes the propensity for autoimmune disorders, but expert opinion on this matter is mixed.¹⁷ Ms. L’s mother has hypothyroidism, which is commonly caused by a prior episode of Hashimoto’s autoimmune thyroiditis. Some physicians advocate for measuring antithyroid antibodies and erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein to gauge the level of autoimmunity, but the usefulness of these measures for detecting autoimmune encephalitis is unclear. These serum markers can be useful in detecting additional important etiologies such as systemic infection or systemic inflammation, and there are conditions such as steroid-responsive encephalopathy with associated thyroiditis, which, as the name suggests, responds to steroids rather than other psychotropic medications. Other risk factors for autoimmune encephalitis include being female, being young, having viral infections (eg, HSV), prior tumor burden, and being in the postpartum period.¹⁸ Some experts also suggest the presence of neurologic symptoms 4 weeks after the first psychiatric or cognitive symptom presentation increases the likelihood of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and a lack of neurologic symptoms would make this diagnosis less likely.^6,19

Continue to: Another item of interest...

Another item of interest in Ms. L’s case is her parents’ request for a Neurology consultation and further workup, as there is an association between caregiver request for workup and eventual diagnosis.⁶ While the etiology of this phenomenon is unclear, the literature suggests individuals with autoimmune encephalitis who initially present to Psychiatry experience longer delays to the appropriate treatment with immunomodulatory therapy than those who first present to Neurology.²⁰

Laboratory and diagnostic testing

Guasp et al² recommend EEG, MRI, and serum autoimmune antibodies (ie, screening for anti-NMDA receptor antibodies) for patients who present with first-episode psychosis, even in the absence of some of the red flags previously discussed. A recent economic analysis suggested screening all patients with first-episode psychosis for serum antibodies may be cost-effective.²¹ Since there can be false positives from serum testing, a positive result should be followed by CSF testing. Serum antibody testing will miss cases where anti-NMDA receptor antibodies are present only in CSF, which is why Guasp et al² recommend ancillary screening with EEG and MRI.Screening all first-episode psychosis patients with EEG and MRI would represent a major change to psychiatric practice and would be beyond the current practical capabilities of many facilities that treat people with new-onset psychosis. Additional evidence is needed before such a change would be required. These suggestions are supported by studies that found most patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis do not initially present with focal neurologic findings, though the majority (95%) do have EEG abnormalities.^2,20,22

For patients whose presentations include features concerning for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, an EEG and MRI are reasonable. In a review of EEG abnormalities in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, Gillinder et al²³ noted that while 30% did not have initial findings, 83.6% of those with confirmed anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis demonstrated EEG abnormalities; the most common were generalized slowing, delta slowing, and focal abnormalities. Discovering an extreme delta-brush activity on EEG is specific for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, but its absence is not fully informative. Practically, slowing can be a nonspecific manifestation of encephalopathy or a medication effect, and many people who present with first-episode psychosis will have recently received antipsychotics, which alter EEG frequency. In a study of EEG changes with antipsychotics, Centorrino et al²⁴ found that generalized background slowing into the theta range across all antipsychotics was not significantly different from control participants, while theta to delta range slowing occurred in 8.2% of those receiving antipsychotics vs 3.3% of controls. Clozapine and olanzapine may be associated with greater EEG abnormalities, while haloperidol and quetiapine contribute a lower risk.²⁵ For young patients with first-episode psychosis without a clear alternative explanation, we advocate for further autoimmune encephalitis workup among all individuals with generalized theta or delta wave slowing.

Because these medication effects are most likely to decrease specificity but not sensitivity of EEG for autoimmune encephalitis, a normal EEG without slowing can be reassuring.²⁶ Moreover, for patients who receive neuroimaging, an MRI may detect inflammation that is not visible on CT. The concerning findings for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis are temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities, though the MRI is normal in most cases and thus should not be reassuring if other concerning features are present.²⁷

The role of lumbar puncture

Another area of active debate surrounds the usefulness and timing of LP. Guasp et al² proposed that all individuals with first-episode psychosis and focal neurologic findings should receive LP and CSF antineuronal antibody testing. They recommend that patients with first-episode psychosis without focal neurologic findings also should receive LP and CSF testing if ≥1 of the following is present:

• slowing on EEG
• temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities on MRI
• positive anti-NMDA receptor antibody in the serum.²

Continue to: Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters...

Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters, such as elevated protein and white blood cell counts, are some of the most sensitive and specific tests for autoimmune encephalitis.² Thus, if the patient is amenable and logistical factors are in place, it may be reasonable to pursue LP earlier in some cases without waiting for serum antibody assays to return (these results can take several weeks). CSF inflammatory changes without neuronal antibodies should lead to other diagnostic considerations (eg, systemic inflammatory disease, psychosis attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus).⁷ While nonspecific, serum laboratory values that may increase suspicion of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis include hyponatremia⁶ and an elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).²⁸ An NLR >4 in conjunction with CSF albumin-to- serum albumin ratio >7 is associated with impaired blood brain barrier integrity and a worse prognosis for those with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.²⁸

Additional clinical features that may sway decisions in favor of obtaining LP despite negative findings on EEG, MRI, and serum antibodies include increased adverse reactions to antipsychotics (eg, neuroleptic malignant syndrome), prodromal infectious symptoms, known tumor, or new-onset neurologic symptoms after initial evaluation.^2,8

Table 2 summarizes key features of laboratory and diagnostic findings in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.

When should you pursue a more extensive workup?

There are some practical tools and rating scales to help clinicians conceptualize risk for autoimmune encephalitis. For psychiatric purposes, however, many of these scales assume that LP, MRI, and EEG have already been completed, and thus it is challenging to incorporate them into psychiatric practice. One such tool is the Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy scale; a score ≥4 is 98% sensitive and 78% to 84% specific for predicting antineural autoantibody positivity.¹⁰ Table 3 describes warning signs that may be useful in helping clinicians decide how urgently to pursue a more extensive workup in the possibility of autoimmune encephalitis.

The importance of catching anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis is underscored by the fact that appropriate treatment is very different than for primary psychosis, and outcomes worsen with delay to appropriate treatment.²⁰ Without treatment, severe cases may progress to autonomic instability, altered consciousness, and respiratory compromise warranting admission to an intensive care unit. While the details are beyond the scope of this review, the recommended treatment for confirmed cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis includes tumor removal (if indicated), reducing inflammation (steroids), removing antibodies via IV immunoglobulins, or plasma exchange.^8,29 Progression of the disease may warrant consideration of rituximab or cyclophosphamide. In nonresponsive cases, third-line treatments include proteasome inhibitors or interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.⁸ For patients with severe catatonia, some studies have investigated the utility of electroconvulsive therapy.³⁰ Conceptually, clinicians may consider the utility of antipsychotics as similar to recommendations for hyperactive delirium for the management of psychotic symptoms, agitation, or insomnia. However, given the risk for antipsychotic intolerance, using the lowest effective dose and vigilant screening for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms, fever, and autonomic instability is recommended.

CASE CONTINUED

Finally, something objective

Ms. L receives haloperidol 2 mg and undergoes an MRI without contrast. Findings are unremarkable. A spot EEG notes diffuse background slowing in the theta range, prompting lumbar puncture. Findings note 0.40 g/L, 0.2 g/L, and 3.5 for the total protein, albumin, and albumin/CSF-serum quotient (QAlb), respectively; all values are within normal limits. A mild lymphocytic pleocytosis is present as evidenced by a cell count of 35 cells/µL. The CSF is sent for qualitative examination of immunoglobulin G and electrophoresis of proteins in the CSF and serum, of which an increased concentration of restricted bands (oligoclonal bands) in the CSF but not the serum would indicate findings of oligoclonal bands. CSF is sent for detection of anti-NMDA receptor antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence, with a plan to involve an interdisciplinary team for treatment if the antibodies return positive and to manage the case symptomatically in the interim.

Bottom Line

A small subpopulation of patients who present with apparent first-episode psychosis will have symptoms caused by autoimmune encephalitis (specifically, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis). We provide 4 screening questions to determine when to pursue a workup for an autoimmune encephalitis, and describe relevant clinical symptoms and warning signs to help differentiate the 2 conditions.

Related Resources

• Askandaryan AS, Naqvi A, Varughese A, et al. Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: neuropsychiatric and multidisciplinary approach to a patient not responding to first-line treatment. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e25751.
• Kayser MS, Titulaer MJ, Gresa-Arribas N, et al. Frequency and characteristics of isolated psychiatric episodes in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(9):1133-1139.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Haloperidol • Haldol
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Rituximab • Rituxan

Hidden within routine presentations of first-episode psychosis is a rare subpopulation whose symptoms are mediated by an autoimmune process for which proper treatment differs significantly from standard care for typical psychotic illness. In this article, we present a hypothetical case and describe how to assess if a patient has an elevated probability of autoimmune encephalitis, determine what diagnostics or medication-induced effects to consider, and identify unresolved questions about best practices.

CASE REPORT

Bizarre behavior and isolation

Ms. L, age 21, is brought to the emergency department (ED) by her college roommate after exhibiting out-of-character behavior and gradual self-isolation over the last 2 months. Her roommate noticed that she had been spending more time isolated in her dorm room and remaining in bed into the early afternoon, though she does not appear to be asleep. Ms. L’s mother is concerned about her daughter’s uncharacteristic refusal to travel home for a family event. Ms. L expresses concern about the intentions of her research preceptor, and recalls messages from the association of colleges telling her to “change her future.” Ms. L hears voices telling her who she can and cannot trust. In the ED, she says she has a headache, experiences mild dizziness while standing, and reports having a brief upper respiratory illness at the end of last semester. Otherwise, a medical review of systems is negative.

Although the etiology of first-episode psychosis can be numerous or unknown, many psychiatrists feel comfortable with the initial diagnostic for this type of clinical presentation. However, for some clinicians, it may be challenging to feel confident in making a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis.

Autoimmune encephalitis is a family of syndromes caused by autoantibodies targeting either intracellular or extracellular neuronal antigens. Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis is one of the most common forms of autoimmune encephalitis that can present with symptoms of psychosis.¹

In this article, we focus on anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and use the term interchangeably with autoimmune encephalitis for 2 reasons. First, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis can present with psychotic symptoms as the only symptoms (prior to cognitive or neurologic manifestations) or can present with psychotic symptoms as the main indicator (with other symptoms that are more subtle and possibly missed). Second, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis often occurs in young adults, which is when it is common to see the onset of a primary psychotic illness. These 2 factors make it likely that these cases will come into the evaluative sphere of psychiatrists. We give special attention to features of cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis confirmed with antineuronal antibodies in the CSF, as it has emerged that antibodies in the serum can be nonspecific and nonpathogenic.^2,3

What does anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis look like?

Symptoms of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis resemble those of a primary psychotic disorder, which can make it challenging to differentiate between the 2 conditions, and might cause the correct diagnosis to be missed. Pollak et al⁴ proposed that psychiatrically confusing presentations that don’t clearly match an identifiable psychotic disorder should raise a red flag for an autoimmune etiology. However, studies often fail to describe the specific psychiatric features of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and thus provide little practical evidence to guide diagnosis. In some of the largest studies of patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, psychiatric clinical findings are often combined into nonspecific headings such as “abnormal behavior” or “behavioral and cognitive” symptoms.⁵ Such groupings make this the most common clinical finding (95%)⁵ but make it difficult to discern particular clinical characteristics. Where available, specific symptoms identified across studies include agitation, aggression, changes in mood and/or irritability, insomnia, delusions, hallucinations, and occasionally catatonic features.^6,7 Attempts to identify specific psychiatric phenotypes distinct from primary psychotic illnesses have fallen short due to contradictory findings and lack of clinical practicality.⁸ One exception is the presence of catatonic features, which have been found in CSF-confirmed studies.² In contrast to the typical teaching that the hallucination modality (eg, visual or tactile) can be helpful in estimating the likelihood of a secondary psychosis (ie, drug-induced, neurodegenerative, or autoimmune), there does not appear to be a difference in hallucination modality between encephalitis and primary psychotic disorders.⁹

History and review of systems

Another red flag to consider is the rapidity of symptom presentation. Symptoms that progress within 3 months increase the likelihood that the patient has autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁰ Cases where collateral information indicates the psychotic episode was preceded by a long, subtle decline in school performance, social withdrawal, and attenuated psychotic symptoms typical of a schizophrenia prodrome are less likely to be an autoimmune psychosis.¹¹ A more delayed presentation does not entirely exclude autoimmune encephalitis; however, a viral-like prodrome before the onset of psychosis increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis. Such a prodrome may include fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁷

Continue to: Another indication is the presence...

Another indication is the presence of new seizures within 1 year of presenting with psychotic symptoms.¹⁰ The possibility of undiagnosed seizures should be considered in a patient with psychosis who has episodes of unresponsiveness, dissociative episodes, or seizure-like activity that is thought to be psychogenic but has not been fully evaluated. Seizures in autoimmune encephalitis involve deep structures in the brain and can be present without overt epileptiform activity on EEG, but rather causing only bilateral slowing that is often described as nonspecific.¹²

In a young patient presenting with first-episode psychosis, a recent diagnosis of cancer or abnormal finding in the ovaries increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.⁴ Historically, however, this type of medical history has been irrelevant to psychosis. Although rare, any person presenting with first-episode psychosis and a history of herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis should be evaluated for autoimmune encephalitis because anti-NMDA receptor antibodies have been reported to be present in approximately one-third of these patients.¹³ Finally, the report of focal neurologic symptoms, including neck stiffness or neck pain, should raise concern, although sensory, working memory, and cognitive deficits may be difficult to fully distinguish from common somatic and cognitive symptoms in a primary psychiatric presentation.

Table 1 lists 4 questions to ask patients who present with first-episode psychosis that may not usually be part of a typical evaluation.

CASE CONTINUED

Uncooperative with examination

In the ED, Ms. L’s heart rate is 101 beats per minute and her blood pressure is 102/72 mm Hg. Her body mass index (BMI) is 22, which suggests an approximate 8-pound weight loss since her BMI was last assessed. Ms. L responds to questions with 1- to 6-word sentences, without clear verbigeration. Though her speech is not pressured, it is of increased rate. Her gaze scans the room, occasionally becoming fixed for 5 to 10 seconds but is aborted by the interviewer’s comment on this behavior. Ms. L efficiently and accurately spells WORLD backwards, then asks “Why?” and refuses to engage in further cognitive testing, stating “Not doing that.” When the interviewer asks “Why not?” she responds “Not doing that.” Her cranial nerves are intact, and she refuses cerebellar testing or requests to assess tone. There are no observed stereotypies, posturing, or echopraxia.

While not necessary for a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, short-term memory loss is a common cognitive finding across studies.^5-7 A common clinical finding from a mental status exam is speech disorders, including (but not limited to) increased rates of speech or decreased verbal output.⁷ Autonomic instability—including tachycardia, markedly labile blood pressures, and orthostasis—all increase the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁴ Interpreting a patient’s vital sign changes can be confounded if they are agitated or anxious, or if they are taking an antipsychotic that produces adverse anticholinergic effects. However, vital sign abnormalities that precede medication administration or do not correlate with fluctuations in mental status increase suspicion for an autoimmune encephalitis.

Continue to: In the absence of the adverse effect...

In the absence of the adverse effect of a medication, orthostasis is uncommon in a well-hydrated young person. Some guidelines⁴ suggest that symptoms of catatonia should be considered a red flag for autoimmune encephalitis. According to the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, commonly identified features include immobility, staring, mutism, posturing, withdrawal, rigidity, and gegenhalten.¹⁵ Catatonia is common among patients with anti-NDMA receptor encephalitis, though it may not be initially present and could emerge later.² However, there are documented cases of autoimmune encephalitis where the patient had only isolated features of catatonia, such as echolalia or mutism.²

CASE CONTINUED

History helps narrow the diagnosis

Ms. L’s parents say their daughter has not had prior contact with a therapist or psychiatrist, previous psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, self-injury, or binging or purging behaviors. Ms. L’s paternal grandfather was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but he is currently employed, lives alone, and has not taken medication for many years. Her mother has hypothyroidism. Ms. L was born at full term via vaginal delivery without cardiac defects or a neonatal intensive care unit stay. Her mother said she did not have postpartum depression or anxiety, a complicated pregnancy, or exposure to tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Ms. L has no history of childhood seizures or head injury with loss of consciousness. She is an only child, born and raised in a house in a metropolitan area, walked at 13 months, did not require early intervention or speech therapy, and met normal language milestones.

She attended kindergarten at age 6 and progressed throughout public school without regressions in reading, writing, or behavioral manifestations, and did not require a 504 Plan or individualized education program. Ms. L graduated high school in the top 30% of her class, was socially active, and attended a local college. In college, she achieved honor roll, enrolled in a sorority, and was a part of a research lab. Her only medication is oral contraception. She consumes alcohol socially, and reports no cannabis, cigarette, or vaping use. Ms. L says she does not use hallucinogens, stimulants, opiates, or cocaine, and her roommate and family confirm this. She denies recent travel and is sexually active. Ms. L’s urinary and serum toxicology are unremarkable, human chorionic gonadotropin is undetectable, and her sodium level is 133 mEq/L. A measure of serum neutrophils is 6.8 x 10⁹/L and serum lymphocytes is 1.7 x 10⁹/L. Her parents adamantly request a Neurology consultation and further workup, including a lumbar puncture (LP), EEG, and brain imaging (MRI).

This information is useful in ruling out other potential causes of psychosis, such as substance-induced psychosis and neurodevelopmental disorders that can present with psychosis. Additionally, neurodevelopmental abnormalities and psychiatric prodromal symptoms are known precedents in individuals who develop a primary psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.¹⁶ A family history that includes a psychotic illness may increase the likelihood of a primary psychotic disorder in offspring; however, clinicians must also consider the accuracy of diagnosis in the family, as this can often be inaccurate or influenced by historical cultural bias. We recommend further elucidating the likelihood of a genetic predisposition to a primary psychotic disorder by clarifying familial medication history and functionality.

For example, the fact that Ms. L’s grandfather has not taken medication for many years and has a high degree of functioning and/or absence of cognitive deficits would lower our suspicion for an accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia (given the typical cognitive decline with untreated illness). Another piece of family history relevant to autoimmune encephalitis includes the propensity for autoimmune disorders, but expert opinion on this matter is mixed.¹⁷ Ms. L’s mother has hypothyroidism, which is commonly caused by a prior episode of Hashimoto’s autoimmune thyroiditis. Some physicians advocate for measuring antithyroid antibodies and erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein to gauge the level of autoimmunity, but the usefulness of these measures for detecting autoimmune encephalitis is unclear. These serum markers can be useful in detecting additional important etiologies such as systemic infection or systemic inflammation, and there are conditions such as steroid-responsive encephalopathy with associated thyroiditis, which, as the name suggests, responds to steroids rather than other psychotropic medications. Other risk factors for autoimmune encephalitis include being female, being young, having viral infections (eg, HSV), prior tumor burden, and being in the postpartum period.¹⁸ Some experts also suggest the presence of neurologic symptoms 4 weeks after the first psychiatric or cognitive symptom presentation increases the likelihood of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and a lack of neurologic symptoms would make this diagnosis less likely.^6,19

Continue to: Another item of interest...

Another item of interest in Ms. L’s case is her parents’ request for a Neurology consultation and further workup, as there is an association between caregiver request for workup and eventual diagnosis.⁶ While the etiology of this phenomenon is unclear, the literature suggests individuals with autoimmune encephalitis who initially present to Psychiatry experience longer delays to the appropriate treatment with immunomodulatory therapy than those who first present to Neurology.²⁰

Laboratory and diagnostic testing

Guasp et al² recommend EEG, MRI, and serum autoimmune antibodies (ie, screening for anti-NMDA receptor antibodies) for patients who present with first-episode psychosis, even in the absence of some of the red flags previously discussed. A recent economic analysis suggested screening all patients with first-episode psychosis for serum antibodies may be cost-effective.²¹ Since there can be false positives from serum testing, a positive result should be followed by CSF testing. Serum antibody testing will miss cases where anti-NMDA receptor antibodies are present only in CSF, which is why Guasp et al² recommend ancillary screening with EEG and MRI.Screening all first-episode psychosis patients with EEG and MRI would represent a major change to psychiatric practice and would be beyond the current practical capabilities of many facilities that treat people with new-onset psychosis. Additional evidence is needed before such a change would be required. These suggestions are supported by studies that found most patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis do not initially present with focal neurologic findings, though the majority (95%) do have EEG abnormalities.^2,20,22

For patients whose presentations include features concerning for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, an EEG and MRI are reasonable. In a review of EEG abnormalities in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, Gillinder et al²³ noted that while 30% did not have initial findings, 83.6% of those with confirmed anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis demonstrated EEG abnormalities; the most common were generalized slowing, delta slowing, and focal abnormalities. Discovering an extreme delta-brush activity on EEG is specific for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, but its absence is not fully informative. Practically, slowing can be a nonspecific manifestation of encephalopathy or a medication effect, and many people who present with first-episode psychosis will have recently received antipsychotics, which alter EEG frequency. In a study of EEG changes with antipsychotics, Centorrino et al²⁴ found that generalized background slowing into the theta range across all antipsychotics was not significantly different from control participants, while theta to delta range slowing occurred in 8.2% of those receiving antipsychotics vs 3.3% of controls. Clozapine and olanzapine may be associated with greater EEG abnormalities, while haloperidol and quetiapine contribute a lower risk.²⁵ For young patients with first-episode psychosis without a clear alternative explanation, we advocate for further autoimmune encephalitis workup among all individuals with generalized theta or delta wave slowing.

Because these medication effects are most likely to decrease specificity but not sensitivity of EEG for autoimmune encephalitis, a normal EEG without slowing can be reassuring.²⁶ Moreover, for patients who receive neuroimaging, an MRI may detect inflammation that is not visible on CT. The concerning findings for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis are temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities, though the MRI is normal in most cases and thus should not be reassuring if other concerning features are present.²⁷

The role of lumbar puncture

Another area of active debate surrounds the usefulness and timing of LP. Guasp et al² proposed that all individuals with first-episode psychosis and focal neurologic findings should receive LP and CSF antineuronal antibody testing. They recommend that patients with first-episode psychosis without focal neurologic findings also should receive LP and CSF testing if ≥1 of the following is present:

• slowing on EEG
• temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities on MRI
• positive anti-NMDA receptor antibody in the serum.²

Continue to: Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters...

Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters, such as elevated protein and white blood cell counts, are some of the most sensitive and specific tests for autoimmune encephalitis.² Thus, if the patient is amenable and logistical factors are in place, it may be reasonable to pursue LP earlier in some cases without waiting for serum antibody assays to return (these results can take several weeks). CSF inflammatory changes without neuronal antibodies should lead to other diagnostic considerations (eg, systemic inflammatory disease, psychosis attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus).⁷ While nonspecific, serum laboratory values that may increase suspicion of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis include hyponatremia⁶ and an elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).²⁸ An NLR >4 in conjunction with CSF albumin-to- serum albumin ratio >7 is associated with impaired blood brain barrier integrity and a worse prognosis for those with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.²⁸

Additional clinical features that may sway decisions in favor of obtaining LP despite negative findings on EEG, MRI, and serum antibodies include increased adverse reactions to antipsychotics (eg, neuroleptic malignant syndrome), prodromal infectious symptoms, known tumor, or new-onset neurologic symptoms after initial evaluation.^2,8

Table 2 summarizes key features of laboratory and diagnostic findings in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.

When should you pursue a more extensive workup?

There are some practical tools and rating scales to help clinicians conceptualize risk for autoimmune encephalitis. For psychiatric purposes, however, many of these scales assume that LP, MRI, and EEG have already been completed, and thus it is challenging to incorporate them into psychiatric practice. One such tool is the Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy scale; a score ≥4 is 98% sensitive and 78% to 84% specific for predicting antineural autoantibody positivity.¹⁰ Table 3 describes warning signs that may be useful in helping clinicians decide how urgently to pursue a more extensive workup in the possibility of autoimmune encephalitis.

The importance of catching anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis is underscored by the fact that appropriate treatment is very different than for primary psychosis, and outcomes worsen with delay to appropriate treatment.²⁰ Without treatment, severe cases may progress to autonomic instability, altered consciousness, and respiratory compromise warranting admission to an intensive care unit. While the details are beyond the scope of this review, the recommended treatment for confirmed cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis includes tumor removal (if indicated), reducing inflammation (steroids), removing antibodies via IV immunoglobulins, or plasma exchange.^8,29 Progression of the disease may warrant consideration of rituximab or cyclophosphamide. In nonresponsive cases, third-line treatments include proteasome inhibitors or interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.⁸ For patients with severe catatonia, some studies have investigated the utility of electroconvulsive therapy.³⁰ Conceptually, clinicians may consider the utility of antipsychotics as similar to recommendations for hyperactive delirium for the management of psychotic symptoms, agitation, or insomnia. However, given the risk for antipsychotic intolerance, using the lowest effective dose and vigilant screening for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms, fever, and autonomic instability is recommended.

CASE CONTINUED

Finally, something objective

Ms. L receives haloperidol 2 mg and undergoes an MRI without contrast. Findings are unremarkable. A spot EEG notes diffuse background slowing in the theta range, prompting lumbar puncture. Findings note 0.40 g/L, 0.2 g/L, and 3.5 for the total protein, albumin, and albumin/CSF-serum quotient (QAlb), respectively; all values are within normal limits. A mild lymphocytic pleocytosis is present as evidenced by a cell count of 35 cells/µL. The CSF is sent for qualitative examination of immunoglobulin G and electrophoresis of proteins in the CSF and serum, of which an increased concentration of restricted bands (oligoclonal bands) in the CSF but not the serum would indicate findings of oligoclonal bands. CSF is sent for detection of anti-NMDA receptor antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence, with a plan to involve an interdisciplinary team for treatment if the antibodies return positive and to manage the case symptomatically in the interim.

Bottom Line

A small subpopulation of patients who present with apparent first-episode psychosis will have symptoms caused by autoimmune encephalitis (specifically, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis). We provide 4 screening questions to determine when to pursue a workup for an autoimmune encephalitis, and describe relevant clinical symptoms and warning signs to help differentiate the 2 conditions.

Related Resources

• Askandaryan AS, Naqvi A, Varughese A, et al. Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: neuropsychiatric and multidisciplinary approach to a patient not responding to first-line treatment. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e25751.
• Kayser MS, Titulaer MJ, Gresa-Arribas N, et al. Frequency and characteristics of isolated psychiatric episodes in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(9):1133-1139.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Haloperidol • Haldol
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Rituximab • Rituxan

Hidden within routine presentations of first-episode psychosis is a rare subpopulation whose symptoms are mediated by an autoimmune process for which proper treatment differs significantly from standard care for typical psychotic illness. In this article, we present a hypothetical case and describe how to assess if a patient has an elevated probability of autoimmune encephalitis, determine what diagnostics or medication-induced effects to consider, and identify unresolved questions about best practices.

CASE REPORT

Bizarre behavior and isolation

Ms. L, age 21, is brought to the emergency department (ED) by her college roommate after exhibiting out-of-character behavior and gradual self-isolation over the last 2 months. Her roommate noticed that she had been spending more time isolated in her dorm room and remaining in bed into the early afternoon, though she does not appear to be asleep. Ms. L’s mother is concerned about her daughter’s uncharacteristic refusal to travel home for a family event. Ms. L expresses concern about the intentions of her research preceptor, and recalls messages from the association of colleges telling her to “change her future.” Ms. L hears voices telling her who she can and cannot trust. In the ED, she says she has a headache, experiences mild dizziness while standing, and reports having a brief upper respiratory illness at the end of last semester. Otherwise, a medical review of systems is negative.

Although the etiology of first-episode psychosis can be numerous or unknown, many psychiatrists feel comfortable with the initial diagnostic for this type of clinical presentation. However, for some clinicians, it may be challenging to feel confident in making a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis.

Autoimmune encephalitis is a family of syndromes caused by autoantibodies targeting either intracellular or extracellular neuronal antigens. Anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor encephalitis is one of the most common forms of autoimmune encephalitis that can present with symptoms of psychosis.¹

In this article, we focus on anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis and use the term interchangeably with autoimmune encephalitis for 2 reasons. First, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis can present with psychotic symptoms as the only symptoms (prior to cognitive or neurologic manifestations) or can present with psychotic symptoms as the main indicator (with other symptoms that are more subtle and possibly missed). Second, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis often occurs in young adults, which is when it is common to see the onset of a primary psychotic illness. These 2 factors make it likely that these cases will come into the evaluative sphere of psychiatrists. We give special attention to features of cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis confirmed with antineuronal antibodies in the CSF, as it has emerged that antibodies in the serum can be nonspecific and nonpathogenic.^2,3

What does anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis look like?

Symptoms of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis resemble those of a primary psychotic disorder, which can make it challenging to differentiate between the 2 conditions, and might cause the correct diagnosis to be missed. Pollak et al⁴ proposed that psychiatrically confusing presentations that don’t clearly match an identifiable psychotic disorder should raise a red flag for an autoimmune etiology. However, studies often fail to describe the specific psychiatric features of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and thus provide little practical evidence to guide diagnosis. In some of the largest studies of patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, psychiatric clinical findings are often combined into nonspecific headings such as “abnormal behavior” or “behavioral and cognitive” symptoms.⁵ Such groupings make this the most common clinical finding (95%)⁵ but make it difficult to discern particular clinical characteristics. Where available, specific symptoms identified across studies include agitation, aggression, changes in mood and/or irritability, insomnia, delusions, hallucinations, and occasionally catatonic features.^6,7 Attempts to identify specific psychiatric phenotypes distinct from primary psychotic illnesses have fallen short due to contradictory findings and lack of clinical practicality.⁸ One exception is the presence of catatonic features, which have been found in CSF-confirmed studies.² In contrast to the typical teaching that the hallucination modality (eg, visual or tactile) can be helpful in estimating the likelihood of a secondary psychosis (ie, drug-induced, neurodegenerative, or autoimmune), there does not appear to be a difference in hallucination modality between encephalitis and primary psychotic disorders.⁹

History and review of systems

Another red flag to consider is the rapidity of symptom presentation. Symptoms that progress within 3 months increase the likelihood that the patient has autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁰ Cases where collateral information indicates the psychotic episode was preceded by a long, subtle decline in school performance, social withdrawal, and attenuated psychotic symptoms typical of a schizophrenia prodrome are less likely to be an autoimmune psychosis.¹¹ A more delayed presentation does not entirely exclude autoimmune encephalitis; however, a viral-like prodrome before the onset of psychosis increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis. Such a prodrome may include fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.⁷

Continue to: Another indication is the presence...

Another indication is the presence of new seizures within 1 year of presenting with psychotic symptoms.¹⁰ The possibility of undiagnosed seizures should be considered in a patient with psychosis who has episodes of unresponsiveness, dissociative episodes, or seizure-like activity that is thought to be psychogenic but has not been fully evaluated. Seizures in autoimmune encephalitis involve deep structures in the brain and can be present without overt epileptiform activity on EEG, but rather causing only bilateral slowing that is often described as nonspecific.¹²

In a young patient presenting with first-episode psychosis, a recent diagnosis of cancer or abnormal finding in the ovaries increases the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.⁴ Historically, however, this type of medical history has been irrelevant to psychosis. Although rare, any person presenting with first-episode psychosis and a history of herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis should be evaluated for autoimmune encephalitis because anti-NMDA receptor antibodies have been reported to be present in approximately one-third of these patients.¹³ Finally, the report of focal neurologic symptoms, including neck stiffness or neck pain, should raise concern, although sensory, working memory, and cognitive deficits may be difficult to fully distinguish from common somatic and cognitive symptoms in a primary psychiatric presentation.

Table 1 lists 4 questions to ask patients who present with first-episode psychosis that may not usually be part of a typical evaluation.

CASE CONTINUED

Uncooperative with examination

In the ED, Ms. L’s heart rate is 101 beats per minute and her blood pressure is 102/72 mm Hg. Her body mass index (BMI) is 22, which suggests an approximate 8-pound weight loss since her BMI was last assessed. Ms. L responds to questions with 1- to 6-word sentences, without clear verbigeration. Though her speech is not pressured, it is of increased rate. Her gaze scans the room, occasionally becoming fixed for 5 to 10 seconds but is aborted by the interviewer’s comment on this behavior. Ms. L efficiently and accurately spells WORLD backwards, then asks “Why?” and refuses to engage in further cognitive testing, stating “Not doing that.” When the interviewer asks “Why not?” she responds “Not doing that.” Her cranial nerves are intact, and she refuses cerebellar testing or requests to assess tone. There are no observed stereotypies, posturing, or echopraxia.

While not necessary for a diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, short-term memory loss is a common cognitive finding across studies.^5-7 A common clinical finding from a mental status exam is speech disorders, including (but not limited to) increased rates of speech or decreased verbal output.⁷ Autonomic instability—including tachycardia, markedly labile blood pressures, and orthostasis—all increase the likelihood of autoimmune encephalitis.¹⁴ Interpreting a patient’s vital sign changes can be confounded if they are agitated or anxious, or if they are taking an antipsychotic that produces adverse anticholinergic effects. However, vital sign abnormalities that precede medication administration or do not correlate with fluctuations in mental status increase suspicion for an autoimmune encephalitis.

Continue to: In the absence of the adverse effect...

In the absence of the adverse effect of a medication, orthostasis is uncommon in a well-hydrated young person. Some guidelines⁴ suggest that symptoms of catatonia should be considered a red flag for autoimmune encephalitis. According to the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, commonly identified features include immobility, staring, mutism, posturing, withdrawal, rigidity, and gegenhalten.¹⁵ Catatonia is common among patients with anti-NDMA receptor encephalitis, though it may not be initially present and could emerge later.² However, there are documented cases of autoimmune encephalitis where the patient had only isolated features of catatonia, such as echolalia or mutism.²

CASE CONTINUED

History helps narrow the diagnosis

Ms. L’s parents say their daughter has not had prior contact with a therapist or psychiatrist, previous psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, self-injury, or binging or purging behaviors. Ms. L’s paternal grandfather was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but he is currently employed, lives alone, and has not taken medication for many years. Her mother has hypothyroidism. Ms. L was born at full term via vaginal delivery without cardiac defects or a neonatal intensive care unit stay. Her mother said she did not have postpartum depression or anxiety, a complicated pregnancy, or exposure to tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use. Ms. L has no history of childhood seizures or head injury with loss of consciousness. She is an only child, born and raised in a house in a metropolitan area, walked at 13 months, did not require early intervention or speech therapy, and met normal language milestones.

She attended kindergarten at age 6 and progressed throughout public school without regressions in reading, writing, or behavioral manifestations, and did not require a 504 Plan or individualized education program. Ms. L graduated high school in the top 30% of her class, was socially active, and attended a local college. In college, she achieved honor roll, enrolled in a sorority, and was a part of a research lab. Her only medication is oral contraception. She consumes alcohol socially, and reports no cannabis, cigarette, or vaping use. Ms. L says she does not use hallucinogens, stimulants, opiates, or cocaine, and her roommate and family confirm this. She denies recent travel and is sexually active. Ms. L’s urinary and serum toxicology are unremarkable, human chorionic gonadotropin is undetectable, and her sodium level is 133 mEq/L. A measure of serum neutrophils is 6.8 x 10⁹/L and serum lymphocytes is 1.7 x 10⁹/L. Her parents adamantly request a Neurology consultation and further workup, including a lumbar puncture (LP), EEG, and brain imaging (MRI).

This information is useful in ruling out other potential causes of psychosis, such as substance-induced psychosis and neurodevelopmental disorders that can present with psychosis. Additionally, neurodevelopmental abnormalities and psychiatric prodromal symptoms are known precedents in individuals who develop a primary psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.¹⁶ A family history that includes a psychotic illness may increase the likelihood of a primary psychotic disorder in offspring; however, clinicians must also consider the accuracy of diagnosis in the family, as this can often be inaccurate or influenced by historical cultural bias. We recommend further elucidating the likelihood of a genetic predisposition to a primary psychotic disorder by clarifying familial medication history and functionality.

For example, the fact that Ms. L’s grandfather has not taken medication for many years and has a high degree of functioning and/or absence of cognitive deficits would lower our suspicion for an accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia (given the typical cognitive decline with untreated illness). Another piece of family history relevant to autoimmune encephalitis includes the propensity for autoimmune disorders, but expert opinion on this matter is mixed.¹⁷ Ms. L’s mother has hypothyroidism, which is commonly caused by a prior episode of Hashimoto’s autoimmune thyroiditis. Some physicians advocate for measuring antithyroid antibodies and erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein to gauge the level of autoimmunity, but the usefulness of these measures for detecting autoimmune encephalitis is unclear. These serum markers can be useful in detecting additional important etiologies such as systemic infection or systemic inflammation, and there are conditions such as steroid-responsive encephalopathy with associated thyroiditis, which, as the name suggests, responds to steroids rather than other psychotropic medications. Other risk factors for autoimmune encephalitis include being female, being young, having viral infections (eg, HSV), prior tumor burden, and being in the postpartum period.¹⁸ Some experts also suggest the presence of neurologic symptoms 4 weeks after the first psychiatric or cognitive symptom presentation increases the likelihood of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, and a lack of neurologic symptoms would make this diagnosis less likely.^6,19

Continue to: Another item of interest...

Another item of interest in Ms. L’s case is her parents’ request for a Neurology consultation and further workup, as there is an association between caregiver request for workup and eventual diagnosis.⁶ While the etiology of this phenomenon is unclear, the literature suggests individuals with autoimmune encephalitis who initially present to Psychiatry experience longer delays to the appropriate treatment with immunomodulatory therapy than those who first present to Neurology.²⁰

Laboratory and diagnostic testing

Guasp et al² recommend EEG, MRI, and serum autoimmune antibodies (ie, screening for anti-NMDA receptor antibodies) for patients who present with first-episode psychosis, even in the absence of some of the red flags previously discussed. A recent economic analysis suggested screening all patients with first-episode psychosis for serum antibodies may be cost-effective.²¹ Since there can be false positives from serum testing, a positive result should be followed by CSF testing. Serum antibody testing will miss cases where anti-NMDA receptor antibodies are present only in CSF, which is why Guasp et al² recommend ancillary screening with EEG and MRI.Screening all first-episode psychosis patients with EEG and MRI would represent a major change to psychiatric practice and would be beyond the current practical capabilities of many facilities that treat people with new-onset psychosis. Additional evidence is needed before such a change would be required. These suggestions are supported by studies that found most patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis do not initially present with focal neurologic findings, though the majority (95%) do have EEG abnormalities.^2,20,22

For patients whose presentations include features concerning for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, an EEG and MRI are reasonable. In a review of EEG abnormalities in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, Gillinder et al²³ noted that while 30% did not have initial findings, 83.6% of those with confirmed anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis demonstrated EEG abnormalities; the most common were generalized slowing, delta slowing, and focal abnormalities. Discovering an extreme delta-brush activity on EEG is specific for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, but its absence is not fully informative. Practically, slowing can be a nonspecific manifestation of encephalopathy or a medication effect, and many people who present with first-episode psychosis will have recently received antipsychotics, which alter EEG frequency. In a study of EEG changes with antipsychotics, Centorrino et al²⁴ found that generalized background slowing into the theta range across all antipsychotics was not significantly different from control participants, while theta to delta range slowing occurred in 8.2% of those receiving antipsychotics vs 3.3% of controls. Clozapine and olanzapine may be associated with greater EEG abnormalities, while haloperidol and quetiapine contribute a lower risk.²⁵ For young patients with first-episode psychosis without a clear alternative explanation, we advocate for further autoimmune encephalitis workup among all individuals with generalized theta or delta wave slowing.

Because these medication effects are most likely to decrease specificity but not sensitivity of EEG for autoimmune encephalitis, a normal EEG without slowing can be reassuring.²⁶ Moreover, for patients who receive neuroimaging, an MRI may detect inflammation that is not visible on CT. The concerning findings for anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis are temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities, though the MRI is normal in most cases and thus should not be reassuring if other concerning features are present.²⁷

The role of lumbar puncture

Another area of active debate surrounds the usefulness and timing of LP. Guasp et al² proposed that all individuals with first-episode psychosis and focal neurologic findings should receive LP and CSF antineuronal antibody testing. They recommend that patients with first-episode psychosis without focal neurologic findings also should receive LP and CSF testing if ≥1 of the following is present:

• slowing on EEG
• temporal or multifocal T2 hyperintensities on MRI
• positive anti-NMDA receptor antibody in the serum.²

Continue to: Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters...

Evidence suggests that basic CSF parameters, such as elevated protein and white blood cell counts, are some of the most sensitive and specific tests for autoimmune encephalitis.² Thus, if the patient is amenable and logistical factors are in place, it may be reasonable to pursue LP earlier in some cases without waiting for serum antibody assays to return (these results can take several weeks). CSF inflammatory changes without neuronal antibodies should lead to other diagnostic considerations (eg, systemic inflammatory disease, psychosis attributed to systemic lupus erythematosus).⁷ While nonspecific, serum laboratory values that may increase suspicion of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis include hyponatremia⁶ and an elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR).²⁸ An NLR >4 in conjunction with CSF albumin-to- serum albumin ratio >7 is associated with impaired blood brain barrier integrity and a worse prognosis for those with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.²⁸

Additional clinical features that may sway decisions in favor of obtaining LP despite negative findings on EEG, MRI, and serum antibodies include increased adverse reactions to antipsychotics (eg, neuroleptic malignant syndrome), prodromal infectious symptoms, known tumor, or new-onset neurologic symptoms after initial evaluation.^2,8

Table 2 summarizes key features of laboratory and diagnostic findings in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis.

When should you pursue a more extensive workup?

There are some practical tools and rating scales to help clinicians conceptualize risk for autoimmune encephalitis. For psychiatric purposes, however, many of these scales assume that LP, MRI, and EEG have already been completed, and thus it is challenging to incorporate them into psychiatric practice. One such tool is the Antibody Prevalence in Epilepsy and Encephalopathy scale; a score ≥4 is 98% sensitive and 78% to 84% specific for predicting antineural autoantibody positivity.¹⁰ Table 3 describes warning signs that may be useful in helping clinicians decide how urgently to pursue a more extensive workup in the possibility of autoimmune encephalitis.

The importance of catching anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis is underscored by the fact that appropriate treatment is very different than for primary psychosis, and outcomes worsen with delay to appropriate treatment.²⁰ Without treatment, severe cases may progress to autonomic instability, altered consciousness, and respiratory compromise warranting admission to an intensive care unit. While the details are beyond the scope of this review, the recommended treatment for confirmed cases of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis includes tumor removal (if indicated), reducing inflammation (steroids), removing antibodies via IV immunoglobulins, or plasma exchange.^8,29 Progression of the disease may warrant consideration of rituximab or cyclophosphamide. In nonresponsive cases, third-line treatments include proteasome inhibitors or interleukin-6 receptor antagonists.⁸ For patients with severe catatonia, some studies have investigated the utility of electroconvulsive therapy.³⁰ Conceptually, clinicians may consider the utility of antipsychotics as similar to recommendations for hyperactive delirium for the management of psychotic symptoms, agitation, or insomnia. However, given the risk for antipsychotic intolerance, using the lowest effective dose and vigilant screening for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms, fever, and autonomic instability is recommended.

CASE CONTINUED

Finally, something objective

Ms. L receives haloperidol 2 mg and undergoes an MRI without contrast. Findings are unremarkable. A spot EEG notes diffuse background slowing in the theta range, prompting lumbar puncture. Findings note 0.40 g/L, 0.2 g/L, and 3.5 for the total protein, albumin, and albumin/CSF-serum quotient (QAlb), respectively; all values are within normal limits. A mild lymphocytic pleocytosis is present as evidenced by a cell count of 35 cells/µL. The CSF is sent for qualitative examination of immunoglobulin G and electrophoresis of proteins in the CSF and serum, of which an increased concentration of restricted bands (oligoclonal bands) in the CSF but not the serum would indicate findings of oligoclonal bands. CSF is sent for detection of anti-NMDA receptor antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence, with a plan to involve an interdisciplinary team for treatment if the antibodies return positive and to manage the case symptomatically in the interim.

Bottom Line

A small subpopulation of patients who present with apparent first-episode psychosis will have symptoms caused by autoimmune encephalitis (specifically, anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis). We provide 4 screening questions to determine when to pursue a workup for an autoimmune encephalitis, and describe relevant clinical symptoms and warning signs to help differentiate the 2 conditions.

Related Resources

• Askandaryan AS, Naqvi A, Varughese A, et al. Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis: neuropsychiatric and multidisciplinary approach to a patient not responding to first-line treatment. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e25751.
• Kayser MS, Titulaer MJ, Gresa-Arribas N, et al. Frequency and characteristics of isolated psychiatric episodes in anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(9):1133-1139.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Haloperidol • Haldol
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Rituximab • Rituxan

Despite much progress, major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging and life-threatening neuropsychiatric disorder. It is highly prevalent and afflicts tens of millions of Americans.

It is also ranked as the No. 1 disabling medical (not just psychiatric) condition by the World Health Organization.¹ A significant proportion of patients with MDD do not respond adequately to several rounds of antidepressant medications,² and many are labeled as having “treatment-resistant depression” (TRD).

In a previous article, I provocatively proposed that TRD is a myth.³ What I meant is that in a heterogeneous syndrome such as depression, failure to respond to 1, 2, or even 3 antidepressants should not imply TRD, because there is a “right treatment” that has not yet been identified for a given depressed patient. Most of those labeled as TRD have simply not yet received the pharmacotherapy or somatic therapy with the requisite mechanism of action for their variant of depression within a heterogeneous syndrome. IV ketamine, which, astonishingly, often reverses severe TRD of chronic duration within a few hours, is a prime example of why the term TRD is often used prematurely. Ketamine’s mechanism of action (immediate neuroplasticity via glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonism, and stimulation of the mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]) was not recognized for decades because of the obsession with the monoamine model of depression.

Some clinicians may not be aware of the abundance of mechanisms of action currently available for the treatment of MDD as well as bipolar depression. Many practitioners, in both psychiatry and primary care, usually start the treatment of depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and if that does not produce a response or remission, they might switch to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. If that does not control the patient’s depressive symptoms, they start entertaining the notion that the patient may have TRD, not realizing that they have barely scratched the surface of the many therapeutic options and mechanisms of action, one of which could be the “best match” for a given patient.⁴

There will come a day when “precision psychiatry” finally arrives, and specific biomarkers will be developed to identify the “right” treatment for each patient within the heterogenous syndrome of depression.⁵ Until that day arrives, the treatment of depression will continue to be a process of trial and error, and hit or miss. But research will eventually discover genetic, neuro­chemical, neurophysiological, neuro­imaging, or neuroimmune biomarkers that will rapidly guide clinicians to the correct treatment. This is critical to avoid inordinate delays in achieving remission and avert the ever-present risk of suicidal behavior.

The Table⁶ provides an overview of the numerous treatments currently available to manage depression. All increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor and restore healthy neuroplasticity and neuro­genesis, which are impaired in MDD and currently believed to be a final common pathway for all depression treatments.⁷

These 41 therapeutic approaches to treating MDD or bipolar depression reflect the heterogeneity of mechanisms of action to address an equally heterogeneous syndrome. This implies that clinicians have a wide array of on-label options to manage patients with depression, aiming for remission, not just a good response, which typically is defined as a ≥50% reduction in total score on one of the validated rating scales used to quantify depression severity, such as the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, or Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia.

Continue to: When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies...

When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies fall short and produce a suboptimal response, clinicians can resort to other treatment options known to have a higher efficacy than oral antidepressants. These include electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and vagus nerve stimulation. Other on-label options include adjunctive therapy with one of the approved second-generation antipsychotic agents or with adjunctive esketamine.

But if the patient still does not improve, one of many emerging off-label treatment options may work. One of the exciting new discoveries is the hallucinogen psilocybin, whose mechanism of action is truly unique. Unlike standard antidepressant medications, which modulate neurotransmitters, psilocybin increases the brain’s network flexibility, decreases the modularity of several key brain networks (especially the default-brain network, or DMN), and alters the dark and distorted mental perspective of depression to a much healthier and optimistic outlook about the self and the world.⁸ Such novel breakthroughs in the treatment of severe depression will shed some unprecedented insights into the core neurobiology of depression, and may lead to early intervention and prevention.

As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. Psychiatric clinicians should rejoice that there are abundant approaches and therapeutic mechanisms to relieve their severely melancholic (and often suicidal) patients from the grips of this disabling and life-altering brain syndrome.

Despite much progress, major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging and life-threatening neuropsychiatric disorder. It is highly prevalent and afflicts tens of millions of Americans.

It is also ranked as the No. 1 disabling medical (not just psychiatric) condition by the World Health Organization.¹ A significant proportion of patients with MDD do not respond adequately to several rounds of antidepressant medications,² and many are labeled as having “treatment-resistant depression” (TRD).

In a previous article, I provocatively proposed that TRD is a myth.³ What I meant is that in a heterogeneous syndrome such as depression, failure to respond to 1, 2, or even 3 antidepressants should not imply TRD, because there is a “right treatment” that has not yet been identified for a given depressed patient. Most of those labeled as TRD have simply not yet received the pharmacotherapy or somatic therapy with the requisite mechanism of action for their variant of depression within a heterogeneous syndrome. IV ketamine, which, astonishingly, often reverses severe TRD of chronic duration within a few hours, is a prime example of why the term TRD is often used prematurely. Ketamine’s mechanism of action (immediate neuroplasticity via glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonism, and stimulation of the mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]) was not recognized for decades because of the obsession with the monoamine model of depression.

Some clinicians may not be aware of the abundance of mechanisms of action currently available for the treatment of MDD as well as bipolar depression. Many practitioners, in both psychiatry and primary care, usually start the treatment of depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and if that does not produce a response or remission, they might switch to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. If that does not control the patient’s depressive symptoms, they start entertaining the notion that the patient may have TRD, not realizing that they have barely scratched the surface of the many therapeutic options and mechanisms of action, one of which could be the “best match” for a given patient.⁴

There will come a day when “precision psychiatry” finally arrives, and specific biomarkers will be developed to identify the “right” treatment for each patient within the heterogenous syndrome of depression.⁵ Until that day arrives, the treatment of depression will continue to be a process of trial and error, and hit or miss. But research will eventually discover genetic, neuro­chemical, neurophysiological, neuro­imaging, or neuroimmune biomarkers that will rapidly guide clinicians to the correct treatment. This is critical to avoid inordinate delays in achieving remission and avert the ever-present risk of suicidal behavior.

The Table⁶ provides an overview of the numerous treatments currently available to manage depression. All increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor and restore healthy neuroplasticity and neuro­genesis, which are impaired in MDD and currently believed to be a final common pathway for all depression treatments.⁷

These 41 therapeutic approaches to treating MDD or bipolar depression reflect the heterogeneity of mechanisms of action to address an equally heterogeneous syndrome. This implies that clinicians have a wide array of on-label options to manage patients with depression, aiming for remission, not just a good response, which typically is defined as a ≥50% reduction in total score on one of the validated rating scales used to quantify depression severity, such as the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, or Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia.

Continue to: When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies...

When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies fall short and produce a suboptimal response, clinicians can resort to other treatment options known to have a higher efficacy than oral antidepressants. These include electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and vagus nerve stimulation. Other on-label options include adjunctive therapy with one of the approved second-generation antipsychotic agents or with adjunctive esketamine.

But if the patient still does not improve, one of many emerging off-label treatment options may work. One of the exciting new discoveries is the hallucinogen psilocybin, whose mechanism of action is truly unique. Unlike standard antidepressant medications, which modulate neurotransmitters, psilocybin increases the brain’s network flexibility, decreases the modularity of several key brain networks (especially the default-brain network, or DMN), and alters the dark and distorted mental perspective of depression to a much healthier and optimistic outlook about the self and the world.⁸ Such novel breakthroughs in the treatment of severe depression will shed some unprecedented insights into the core neurobiology of depression, and may lead to early intervention and prevention.

As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. Psychiatric clinicians should rejoice that there are abundant approaches and therapeutic mechanisms to relieve their severely melancholic (and often suicidal) patients from the grips of this disabling and life-altering brain syndrome.

Despite much progress, major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging and life-threatening neuropsychiatric disorder. It is highly prevalent and afflicts tens of millions of Americans.

It is also ranked as the No. 1 disabling medical (not just psychiatric) condition by the World Health Organization.¹ A significant proportion of patients with MDD do not respond adequately to several rounds of antidepressant medications,² and many are labeled as having “treatment-resistant depression” (TRD).

In a previous article, I provocatively proposed that TRD is a myth.³ What I meant is that in a heterogeneous syndrome such as depression, failure to respond to 1, 2, or even 3 antidepressants should not imply TRD, because there is a “right treatment” that has not yet been identified for a given depressed patient. Most of those labeled as TRD have simply not yet received the pharmacotherapy or somatic therapy with the requisite mechanism of action for their variant of depression within a heterogeneous syndrome. IV ketamine, which, astonishingly, often reverses severe TRD of chronic duration within a few hours, is a prime example of why the term TRD is often used prematurely. Ketamine’s mechanism of action (immediate neuroplasticity via glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonism, and stimulation of the mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]) was not recognized for decades because of the obsession with the monoamine model of depression.

Some clinicians may not be aware of the abundance of mechanisms of action currently available for the treatment of MDD as well as bipolar depression. Many practitioners, in both psychiatry and primary care, usually start the treatment of depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and if that does not produce a response or remission, they might switch to a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. If that does not control the patient’s depressive symptoms, they start entertaining the notion that the patient may have TRD, not realizing that they have barely scratched the surface of the many therapeutic options and mechanisms of action, one of which could be the “best match” for a given patient.⁴

There will come a day when “precision psychiatry” finally arrives, and specific biomarkers will be developed to identify the “right” treatment for each patient within the heterogenous syndrome of depression.⁵ Until that day arrives, the treatment of depression will continue to be a process of trial and error, and hit or miss. But research will eventually discover genetic, neuro­chemical, neurophysiological, neuro­imaging, or neuroimmune biomarkers that will rapidly guide clinicians to the correct treatment. This is critical to avoid inordinate delays in achieving remission and avert the ever-present risk of suicidal behavior.

The Table⁶ provides an overview of the numerous treatments currently available to manage depression. All increase brain-derived neurotrophic factor and restore healthy neuroplasticity and neuro­genesis, which are impaired in MDD and currently believed to be a final common pathway for all depression treatments.⁷

These 41 therapeutic approaches to treating MDD or bipolar depression reflect the heterogeneity of mechanisms of action to address an equally heterogeneous syndrome. This implies that clinicians have a wide array of on-label options to manage patients with depression, aiming for remission, not just a good response, which typically is defined as a ≥50% reduction in total score on one of the validated rating scales used to quantify depression severity, such as the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, or Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia.

Continue to: When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies...

When several FDA-approved pharmacotherapies fall short and produce a suboptimal response, clinicians can resort to other treatment options known to have a higher efficacy than oral antidepressants. These include electroconvulsive therapy, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and vagus nerve stimulation. Other on-label options include adjunctive therapy with one of the approved second-generation antipsychotic agents or with adjunctive esketamine.

But if the patient still does not improve, one of many emerging off-label treatment options may work. One of the exciting new discoveries is the hallucinogen psilocybin, whose mechanism of action is truly unique. Unlike standard antidepressant medications, which modulate neurotransmitters, psilocybin increases the brain’s network flexibility, decreases the modularity of several key brain networks (especially the default-brain network, or DMN), and alters the dark and distorted mental perspective of depression to a much healthier and optimistic outlook about the self and the world.⁸ Such novel breakthroughs in the treatment of severe depression will shed some unprecedented insights into the core neurobiology of depression, and may lead to early intervention and prevention.

As the saying goes, all roads lead to Rome. Psychiatric clinicians should rejoice that there are abundant approaches and therapeutic mechanisms to relieve their severely melancholic (and often suicidal) patients from the grips of this disabling and life-altering brain syndrome.