Clinical Psychiatry News

Every physician encounters difficult or challenging patients during their career, but learning how to anticipate and handle these interactions is not something taught in medical school or residency, according to Donald W. Black, MD, MS.

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

Difficult or challenging encounters with patients are not only unavoidable, they should be expected, Dr. Black said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Every doctor I know has had challenging interactions,” he said. About 15% of encounters were deemed “difficult” in a prospective study of patients by Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, and Kurt Kroenke, MD. A depressive or anxiety disorder was present in 29% of patients, with 11% experiencing two or more disorders. Major depression was present in 8.4%, other depressive disorders in 17.4%, panic disorder in 1.4%, and other anxiety disorders in 14.2% of patients. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Kroenke found that difficult patients demonstrated disrespect and anger, made threats, and locked themselves in rooms (Arch Intern Med. 1999 May 24;159[10]:1069-75). “Rest assured, you are not the only psychiatrist to face this type of issue,” Dr. Black said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Common scenarios can include patients who want certain tests performed after researching symptoms online, threats of legal or social media action after feeling like they are not being listened to, a demand for a second opinion after not agreeing with a physician’s diagnosis, mistrust of doctors after presenting with symptoms and not being diagnosed, patients who focus on negative outcomes, and those who do not comply with treatment. These patients can often appear angry, defensive, frightened or resistant, or manipulative; may provide vague or exaggerated symptoms; or may inappropriately rely on hospital or clinic staff for emotional and physical support.

To complicate matters, the patients’ condition also might contribute to difficult interactions, such as in patients who have conditions like chronic pain or fibromyalgia.

“These often contribute because patients never feel that their problems are being appropriately addressed,” said Dr. Black, professor of psychiatry at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Patients with psychiatric disorders can also present unique challenges that may result in difficult encounters. Patients with anxiety might not be able to be reassured by their doctor, for example, or patients with eating disorders might refuse treatment recommendations, he said.

Difficult encounters can lead to physicians feeling angry, upset, stressed, disrespected, abused, or fearful. But “it’s not just about the patient,” Dr. Black said. Physicians can become angry or defensive because of burnout, stress, or frustration, which can lead to them snapping at patients. Physicians are also overworked, sleep-deprived, and busier than they’d like to be, he added. Personal problems can contribute, and a physician’s belief system can cause a bad interaction with a patient. If physicians “label” one of their patients, that might end up becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for that patient, Dr. Black said. Poor communication, such as not conveying bad news appropriately or with empathy, seeing a patient but never making eye contact, and using medical jargon that could be confusing to the patient, also can contribute to a challenging encounter, he added.

Situational issues also might create a bad experience for the patient. For example, a patient might find it hard to make an appointment, or the clinic might be busy or have a lack of privacy or encounter administrative issues. For patients who do not speak English as their native language, not having access to an interpreter can lead to frustration on the part of both the physician and the patient. “Bad interactions are not good for patient care,” Dr. Black said.

The key to resolving these issues is to focus on the goal, Dr. Black said. “We all want the same thing. We want to help the patient get better; we want to keep patients healthy; we want to keep them happy; we want to be fulfilled; [and] we want to manage our time and make a living – and meet our professional expectations.”

Begin by recognizing the difficult situation and assessing how the patient, the environment, or you might be contributing to the problem. “You have to step back and say what’s going on with this, and what are the factors that are combining to create this situation,” Dr. Black said. It is important to be calm and professional and not argue or talk over the patient. The goal is to work with the patient to find a solution.

One technique is to verbalize the problem without blaming the patient, the physician, or the environment (“We both have very different views about how your symptoms should be investigated, and that’s causing some difficulty between us. Do you agree?”).

There also might be alternative explanations for a patient’s behavior. For example, anger could be misdirected at a physician because of anxiety surrounding an unrelated event. In this case, it is important to listen to the patient and empathize, which will help the patient feel supported and build a rapport that can aid in resolving the problem encounter, Dr. Black said. Finding common ground when patients and physicians have different ideas on treatment or diagnosis is another way to help resolve a difficult encounter.

However, setting boundaries also is important, he noted. If, after remediation or if patients demonstrate signs of threatening or abusive behavior, initiate sexual advances, refuse to follow a treatment plan, fail to pay their bills, or are potentially putting themselves in harm’s way through noncompliance, a physician might consider terminating the relationship. Terminating the patient relationship should be done after attempting to work with the patient through a case manager and team members, and clearly advising a patient about behavior that could lead to termination of the patient-provider relationship. “If the problem is irremediable, notify the patient in writing and allow time for the patient to find another doctor,” Dr. Black said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Black reported that he is a consultant for Otsuka and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Oxford University Press, and UpToDate. In addition, he receives funding from Nellie Ball Trust, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Responsible Gaming.

Every physician encounters difficult or challenging patients during their career, but learning how to anticipate and handle these interactions is not something taught in medical school or residency, according to Donald W. Black, MD, MS.

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

Difficult or challenging encounters with patients are not only unavoidable, they should be expected, Dr. Black said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Every doctor I know has had challenging interactions,” he said. About 15% of encounters were deemed “difficult” in a prospective study of patients by Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, and Kurt Kroenke, MD. A depressive or anxiety disorder was present in 29% of patients, with 11% experiencing two or more disorders. Major depression was present in 8.4%, other depressive disorders in 17.4%, panic disorder in 1.4%, and other anxiety disorders in 14.2% of patients. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Kroenke found that difficult patients demonstrated disrespect and anger, made threats, and locked themselves in rooms (Arch Intern Med. 1999 May 24;159[10]:1069-75). “Rest assured, you are not the only psychiatrist to face this type of issue,” Dr. Black said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Common scenarios can include patients who want certain tests performed after researching symptoms online, threats of legal or social media action after feeling like they are not being listened to, a demand for a second opinion after not agreeing with a physician’s diagnosis, mistrust of doctors after presenting with symptoms and not being diagnosed, patients who focus on negative outcomes, and those who do not comply with treatment. These patients can often appear angry, defensive, frightened or resistant, or manipulative; may provide vague or exaggerated symptoms; or may inappropriately rely on hospital or clinic staff for emotional and physical support.

To complicate matters, the patients’ condition also might contribute to difficult interactions, such as in patients who have conditions like chronic pain or fibromyalgia.

“These often contribute because patients never feel that their problems are being appropriately addressed,” said Dr. Black, professor of psychiatry at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Patients with psychiatric disorders can also present unique challenges that may result in difficult encounters. Patients with anxiety might not be able to be reassured by their doctor, for example, or patients with eating disorders might refuse treatment recommendations, he said.

Difficult encounters can lead to physicians feeling angry, upset, stressed, disrespected, abused, or fearful. But “it’s not just about the patient,” Dr. Black said. Physicians can become angry or defensive because of burnout, stress, or frustration, which can lead to them snapping at patients. Physicians are also overworked, sleep-deprived, and busier than they’d like to be, he added. Personal problems can contribute, and a physician’s belief system can cause a bad interaction with a patient. If physicians “label” one of their patients, that might end up becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for that patient, Dr. Black said. Poor communication, such as not conveying bad news appropriately or with empathy, seeing a patient but never making eye contact, and using medical jargon that could be confusing to the patient, also can contribute to a challenging encounter, he added.

Situational issues also might create a bad experience for the patient. For example, a patient might find it hard to make an appointment, or the clinic might be busy or have a lack of privacy or encounter administrative issues. For patients who do not speak English as their native language, not having access to an interpreter can lead to frustration on the part of both the physician and the patient. “Bad interactions are not good for patient care,” Dr. Black said.

The key to resolving these issues is to focus on the goal, Dr. Black said. “We all want the same thing. We want to help the patient get better; we want to keep patients healthy; we want to keep them happy; we want to be fulfilled; [and] we want to manage our time and make a living – and meet our professional expectations.”

Begin by recognizing the difficult situation and assessing how the patient, the environment, or you might be contributing to the problem. “You have to step back and say what’s going on with this, and what are the factors that are combining to create this situation,” Dr. Black said. It is important to be calm and professional and not argue or talk over the patient. The goal is to work with the patient to find a solution.

One technique is to verbalize the problem without blaming the patient, the physician, or the environment (“We both have very different views about how your symptoms should be investigated, and that’s causing some difficulty between us. Do you agree?”).

There also might be alternative explanations for a patient’s behavior. For example, anger could be misdirected at a physician because of anxiety surrounding an unrelated event. In this case, it is important to listen to the patient and empathize, which will help the patient feel supported and build a rapport that can aid in resolving the problem encounter, Dr. Black said. Finding common ground when patients and physicians have different ideas on treatment or diagnosis is another way to help resolve a difficult encounter.

However, setting boundaries also is important, he noted. If, after remediation or if patients demonstrate signs of threatening or abusive behavior, initiate sexual advances, refuse to follow a treatment plan, fail to pay their bills, or are potentially putting themselves in harm’s way through noncompliance, a physician might consider terminating the relationship. Terminating the patient relationship should be done after attempting to work with the patient through a case manager and team members, and clearly advising a patient about behavior that could lead to termination of the patient-provider relationship. “If the problem is irremediable, notify the patient in writing and allow time for the patient to find another doctor,” Dr. Black said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Black reported that he is a consultant for Otsuka and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Oxford University Press, and UpToDate. In addition, he receives funding from Nellie Ball Trust, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Responsible Gaming.

Every physician encounters difficult or challenging patients during their career, but learning how to anticipate and handle these interactions is not something taught in medical school or residency, according to Donald W. Black, MD, MS.

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

Difficult or challenging encounters with patients are not only unavoidable, they should be expected, Dr. Black said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Every doctor I know has had challenging interactions,” he said. About 15% of encounters were deemed “difficult” in a prospective study of patients by Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, and Kurt Kroenke, MD. A depressive or anxiety disorder was present in 29% of patients, with 11% experiencing two or more disorders. Major depression was present in 8.4%, other depressive disorders in 17.4%, panic disorder in 1.4%, and other anxiety disorders in 14.2% of patients. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Kroenke found that difficult patients demonstrated disrespect and anger, made threats, and locked themselves in rooms (Arch Intern Med. 1999 May 24;159[10]:1069-75). “Rest assured, you are not the only psychiatrist to face this type of issue,” Dr. Black said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Common scenarios can include patients who want certain tests performed after researching symptoms online, threats of legal or social media action after feeling like they are not being listened to, a demand for a second opinion after not agreeing with a physician’s diagnosis, mistrust of doctors after presenting with symptoms and not being diagnosed, patients who focus on negative outcomes, and those who do not comply with treatment. These patients can often appear angry, defensive, frightened or resistant, or manipulative; may provide vague or exaggerated symptoms; or may inappropriately rely on hospital or clinic staff for emotional and physical support.

To complicate matters, the patients’ condition also might contribute to difficult interactions, such as in patients who have conditions like chronic pain or fibromyalgia.

“These often contribute because patients never feel that their problems are being appropriately addressed,” said Dr. Black, professor of psychiatry at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Patients with psychiatric disorders can also present unique challenges that may result in difficult encounters. Patients with anxiety might not be able to be reassured by their doctor, for example, or patients with eating disorders might refuse treatment recommendations, he said.

Difficult encounters can lead to physicians feeling angry, upset, stressed, disrespected, abused, or fearful. But “it’s not just about the patient,” Dr. Black said. Physicians can become angry or defensive because of burnout, stress, or frustration, which can lead to them snapping at patients. Physicians are also overworked, sleep-deprived, and busier than they’d like to be, he added. Personal problems can contribute, and a physician’s belief system can cause a bad interaction with a patient. If physicians “label” one of their patients, that might end up becoming a “self-fulfilling prophecy” for that patient, Dr. Black said. Poor communication, such as not conveying bad news appropriately or with empathy, seeing a patient but never making eye contact, and using medical jargon that could be confusing to the patient, also can contribute to a challenging encounter, he added.

Situational issues also might create a bad experience for the patient. For example, a patient might find it hard to make an appointment, or the clinic might be busy or have a lack of privacy or encounter administrative issues. For patients who do not speak English as their native language, not having access to an interpreter can lead to frustration on the part of both the physician and the patient. “Bad interactions are not good for patient care,” Dr. Black said.

The key to resolving these issues is to focus on the goal, Dr. Black said. “We all want the same thing. We want to help the patient get better; we want to keep patients healthy; we want to keep them happy; we want to be fulfilled; [and] we want to manage our time and make a living – and meet our professional expectations.”

Begin by recognizing the difficult situation and assessing how the patient, the environment, or you might be contributing to the problem. “You have to step back and say what’s going on with this, and what are the factors that are combining to create this situation,” Dr. Black said. It is important to be calm and professional and not argue or talk over the patient. The goal is to work with the patient to find a solution.

One technique is to verbalize the problem without blaming the patient, the physician, or the environment (“We both have very different views about how your symptoms should be investigated, and that’s causing some difficulty between us. Do you agree?”).

There also might be alternative explanations for a patient’s behavior. For example, anger could be misdirected at a physician because of anxiety surrounding an unrelated event. In this case, it is important to listen to the patient and empathize, which will help the patient feel supported and build a rapport that can aid in resolving the problem encounter, Dr. Black said. Finding common ground when patients and physicians have different ideas on treatment or diagnosis is another way to help resolve a difficult encounter.

However, setting boundaries also is important, he noted. If, after remediation or if patients demonstrate signs of threatening or abusive behavior, initiate sexual advances, refuse to follow a treatment plan, fail to pay their bills, or are potentially putting themselves in harm’s way through noncompliance, a physician might consider terminating the relationship. Terminating the patient relationship should be done after attempting to work with the patient through a case manager and team members, and clearly advising a patient about behavior that could lead to termination of the patient-provider relationship. “If the problem is irremediable, notify the patient in writing and allow time for the patient to find another doctor,” Dr. Black said.

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Black reported that he is a consultant for Otsuka and receives royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Oxford University Press, and UpToDate. In addition, he receives funding from Nellie Ball Trust, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Responsible Gaming.

Experts are calling for the immediate suspension of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depression.

A new review by investigators led by John Read, PhD, University of East London, conclude there is no evidence to show that ECT is effective in either its target demographic or its target diagnostic group. They say its use should be suspended until more robust research proves it is safe and effective.

However, the review’s conclusions have been met with passionate opposition from expert psychiatrists who say ECT can be a lifesaving treatment for patients, many of whom have exhausted all other treatment options. Other clinicians maintain that the review itself is fraught with methodologic shortcomings that invalidate its conclusions.

“We’ve concluded there is no adequate research on which to base an answer to the question, ‘Does ECT work?,’ ” Read told Medscape Medical News. “We’re not actually saying ECT doesn’t work. We’re saying there’s no way to know whether it works or not on the basis of the current research, which, after 80 years of the treatment being used, is pretty amazing.”

On the other hand, Read said there is substantial evidence to suggest ECT causes significant adverse events. “Depending who you ask, the psychiatrists or the patients, somewhere between 12% and 55% of patients get permanent or persistent memory loss,” he said.

“So there is a very serious cost to its use, and if there’s a serious cost, you ... have to know that there’s a very strong efficacy benefit, and we just don’t know that. That’s why we’re calling for suspension until there is adequate research,” Read added.

The study was published in a recent issue of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.
 

Widespread use

ECT remains a popular treatment modality for resistant depression. Global data show that it is used to treat almost a million patients every year. Although ECT continues to be the subject of comparative research, the investigators say that most of these studies do not adhere to the same standards that govern clinical trials of other psychiatric medications and medical interventions.

The investigators also note that to date, only 11 placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy of ECT have been conducted. They write that the last study to compare ECT with sham or simulated ECT (SECT) – in which a general anesthetic was administered but the electricity was not – was performed in 1985. Nevertheless, this relatively small body of evidence has been the basis of many meta-analyses.

In the current review, the authors evaluated the impartiality and robustness of these previous meta-analyses and the quality of the studies that were included.

“The primary goal is not to assess whether or not ECT is effective,” they write. “The intent, instead, is to determine whether the available evidence is robust enough to answer that question.”

For Read, the decision to analyze the current state of ECT research was both personal and professional.

“As a young nursing attendant in a Bronx hospital, I had the job of sitting with people as they came around from ECT. It was my job to try to explain why they didn’t know who they were, where they were, why their head was throbbing, and why people would do something like that to them,” he said.

“On the research side, this is my sixth review, and in each one we’ve reached the same conclusion,” Read added.

Other research stands in direct opposition to the current review’s findings. Many studies have concluded that ECT is safe and effective for patients with depression.
 

Ongoing debate

A 2018 registry analysis showed no additional risk for cognitive impairment in patients who underwent ECT up to 40 years after therapy. A 2018 study also showed that ECT was efficacious and cost-effective for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

However, the ECT debate continues. As reported early last year, there seems to be little common ground between clinicians who believe in the utility of ECT for depression and those who vehemently do not.

For the current review, Read and colleagues performed a Medline search for meta-analyses of the efficacy of ECT for depression. Meta-analyses were only included if they comprised placebo-controlled trials that compared ECT with SECT.

Once the meta-analyses were identified, investigators assessed their component studies. This assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers who used a 24-point quality scale developed by the authors. This scale, the authors note, combines the “risk of bias” domains of the Cochrane Handbook Risk of Bias Tool with criteria related to quality of study design and reporting, as well as several criteria specific to ECT research.

The two reviewers were blinded to each other’s ratings. Interrater differences were resolved collectively.

The literature search yielded 83 potential articles; after exclusion criteria were applied, 14 remained. Three of these articles were literature reviews, one discussed different types of statistical analyses used in ECT research, one was a meta-analysis in Hungarian, one was a meta-analysis that compared ECT with SECT in a selected population of elderly people, and three focused on transcranial magnetic stimulation.

This left five meta-analyses for the review. These included from 1 to 7 of the 11 studies in question:

• Janicak et al, 1985 
• Kho, van Vreewijk, Simpson, & Zwinderman, 2003 
• Mutz et al, 2019 
• Pagnin, de Queiroz, Pini, & Cassano, 2004 
• UK ECT Review Group, 2003

The review revealed shortcomings with both the meta-analyses and the studies they included. The investigators found that the mean quality scores of the 11 studies (10.27 ± 2.45 and 11.91 ± 2.91) were not statistically different between the two raters (P = .17), whose scores were significantly correlated (P = .001).

Among the 264 total ratings, the investigators found 55 inconsistencies, which were all resolved by discussion. The mean final quality score for the 11 studies included in the review was 12.27 ± 3.20/24; eight scored 13 or less.

The results of these studies do little to support the benefits of ECT relative to SECT, the reviewers note. Indeed, only four concluded that ECT is significantly superior to SECT. Five found no significant difference, and the remaining two had mixed results.

What’s more, only two of what the investigators describe as “higher quality” studies reported follow-up data. Of these, one produced an effect size of 0.065 favoring ECT, the other showed a small benefit in favor of SECT (effect size, 0.299).

The investigators describe the five meta-analyses included in the review as “flawed,” stating that the meta-analyses “pay little or no attention to the multiple limitations of the studies they include.”

These limitations include the number of patients included in the studies (which average 37 patients); lack of a description of randomization and blinding processes; lack of patient ratings; selective reporting of findings; and the absence of assessment of patient quality of life. Furthermore, the authors note that none of the 11 studies “convincingly” demonstrate double-blinding.

Given these shortcomings, the investigators say the meta-analyses of ECT fail to prove the following:

• The short- and long-term efficacy benefits of ECT over SECT;
• Whether ECT is effective among patients who have failed other treatments for depression;
• Whether ECT prevents ;
• Whether ECT improves patients’ quality of life;
• Whether ECT is more effective in women than men;
• Whether ECT is effective in children or adolescents.

“Shoddy” research

The authors conclude that the review’s findings demonstrate the weakness of evidence that currently supports the use of ECT for depression.

“I would never have guessed how shoddy some of this research was,” said review coauthor Irving Kirsch, PhD, a lecturer on medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. Many of these shortcomings, Kirsch said, involve blinding and placebo effects.

“It’s not clear how you could ever run a truly blinded trial of ECT, given how pronounced the immediate side effects are,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And one of the things that’s underappreciated is the pronounced responses to placebo treatment with depression and severe depression. These can last for a very long time.”

Kirsch noted that more invasive placebo treatments, such as SECT, tend to have more pronounced effects.

“Not all placebos are created equal. We know, for example, that placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills and that placebo surgery can be extremely powerful,” he said.

The authors call for an immediate suspension of ECT until new studies address these research shortcomings.

“The doctors who perform ECT aren’t evil or stupid, they’re just ignorant of the research. What they see is very temporary benefit in some of the patients. The research suggests that about a third – half at most – get a very temporary lift in mood, which seems to be the sort of euphoria you get from mild brain injury,” Read explained.

“I have seen people who haven’t spoken or eaten for several weeks start speaking and eating, but we know that 4 weeks later, they’re going to be just as depressed as they were, or worse. And now they’re going to have brain damage as well,” said Read.

He added that physicians often don’t see long-term patient outcomes, just the immediate effect of ECT.
 

A “lifesaver”

No recent randomized controlled trials regarding ECT have been conducted because “no IRB [institutional review board] on planet earth will allow such a trial because of the overwhelming evidence of efficacy and the risk of anesthesia with no ECT,” noted Mark S. George, MD, the Layton McCurdy Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

It is a “logical fallacy” to conclude that ECT does not work because the trials were flawed, said George, who was not involved with the current review

“This is not supported by anything they have looked at,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not really a scientific study when you make conclusions that aren’t based on your data, or not what you set out to do. That’s what I find egregious here.”

The way he sees it, the utility of ECT is unquestionable. “It is our most effective acute treatment for depression, and it’s our most effective treatment for suicide,” he said.

“The authors of this review don’t see the patients that I see every day, who are catatonic, who can’t eat, who are suicidal. For those people, ECT is a lifesaver,” George added.
 

FDA’s position

Sameer Jauhar, MBChB, PhD, a consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, was equally unimpressed with the quality of the review.

“I try to approach everything with an open mind,” he said. “But as a doctor, if I’m reading about evidence, I expect a well-conducted meta-analysis and/or very clear systematic review with an adequate level of peer review.”

The current review, said Jauhar, doesn’t meet these criteria. He said the article reads more like a narrative review, one in which the authors dictated their own arbitrary criteria of study quality.

Most important, he said, is the fact that ECT has been the focus of a great deal of research. “The best quality synthesis of the evidence I’ve come across is the UK ECT Review Group’s 2003 meta-analysis, published in The Lancet, which asked this very question. None of the studies has changed since then.”

Jauhar also noted that in 2018, the Food and Drug Administration reclassified ECT from class III (higher risk) to class II (moderate risk). Use of ECT was also limited to treatment of “catatonia or a severe major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in patients age 13 years and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response treatment due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition.”

The FDA also noted that “[t]he safe use of ECT for treatment of these conditions has been well studied and is better understood than other uses. Therefore, sufficient information exists to establish special controls that mitigate known risks and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these two uses of ECT devices.”

As part of the FDA’s 2018 reclassification, ECT manufacturers were required to file a premarket approval application for all uses that were not reclassified. The full text of the order is available in the Federal Register.

“So the FDA has been through it, The Lancet has been through it, and the findings were clear,” said Jauhar. “It’s very easy to poke holes in studies that were conducted 30 or more years ago. But the fact is, the field has moved on.”

Jauhar acknowledged there are patients who have had bad experiences with ECT, and he accepts that such events occasionally occur. Nevertheless, he said, “as a piece of scientific work, I don’t know how anyone can give any credibility to this review at all.”

Jauhar also noted that the journal in which the review was published has a 2019 CiteScore of 0.3 and ranks in the 15th percentile of the Scopus Clinical Psychology category. He further noted that Kirsch is a member of the journal’s editorial board.

“I would say that the level of peer review here was negligible at best,” Jauhar said. “In addition, the ‘findings’ are driven more by ideology than evidence.”

Asked to respond to Jauhar’s comments, Kirsch noted that although he is on the journal’s advisory board, he has not been actively involved. Kirsch added that he serves on about a dozen academic advisory boards and serves as a reviewer for many top scientific and medical journals, including The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our article was peer reviewed,” Kirsch said, “and we revised it following the first round of reviews.” The review process did not differ from those he has gone through with more than 250 published peer-reviewed articles on which he was an author or coauthor, he noted.
 

A growing movement

Despite such expert opposition, the movement to suspend ECT continues. Recently, Sarah Price Hancock, MS, CRC, CPMC, who is herself a recipient of more than 100 ECT treatments, authored an international petition to standardize, regulate, and audit the modality. Hancock hopes to present the document, which currently has more than 6600 signatures, to the American Psychiatric Association and similar international societies.

A version of the petition was presented to the UK’s National Health Service on July 2, the 59th anniversary of the death by suicide of Ernest Hemingway, who had received some 20 ECT treatments himself.

“Hopefully by his 60th anniversary, America and the world will be taking his death and the thousands living with adverse reactions more seriously by auditing, regulating, and tracking patients with a history of ECT to provide much needed comprehensive brain injury rehabilitation as necessary,” Hancock told Medscape Medical News.

Among the signatories of the petition is Sue Cunliffe, MbChB, who underwent ECT for depression in 2004, with devastating effects. “I was left really badly brain damaged, and so I’ve never been allowed to work again,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Cunliffe said the immediate effects of the treatment were profound. She said her hands shook, her balance and coordination were impaired, and her memories evaporated. However, she found a neuropsychologist who she says was able to help her recover control of her life. “Now at least I’m able to plan my life so that I can live with the brain damage.”

Kirsch acknowledged that sorting through the ECT literature can be daunting. “If you’re a physician, you try to keep up with the literature, but the problem is, the literature is so old and done in ways which would not pass muster right now. The data are really poor, and I guess it’s just that people aren’t aware of it.”

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

“Does ECT have cognitive side effects? Unfortunately, it does. But so do lots of lifesaving therapies in medicine, like cancer chemotherapy,” he said.

“Nobody really gets well with a single ECT session. It’s usually eight to 12 over 3 or 4 weeks. So it’s not particularly durable. That’s why we often combine ECT with other forms of brain stimulation,” George added.

He noted that the recent advent of alternative forms of ECT – including right unilateral ultrabrief pulse ECT and focal electrically administered seizure therapy – are beginning to address some of these shortcomings.

“The holy grail of brain stimulation is to be able to do things less invasively, and we’re moving slowly in that direction,” he said. “But right now, we don’t have anything that is as acutely as effective as ECT. It is our lifesaver at the moment.”

The review authors as well as George, Jauhar, Cunliffe, and Hancock report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts are calling for the immediate suspension of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depression.

A new review by investigators led by John Read, PhD, University of East London, conclude there is no evidence to show that ECT is effective in either its target demographic or its target diagnostic group. They say its use should be suspended until more robust research proves it is safe and effective.

However, the review’s conclusions have been met with passionate opposition from expert psychiatrists who say ECT can be a lifesaving treatment for patients, many of whom have exhausted all other treatment options. Other clinicians maintain that the review itself is fraught with methodologic shortcomings that invalidate its conclusions.

“We’ve concluded there is no adequate research on which to base an answer to the question, ‘Does ECT work?,’ ” Read told Medscape Medical News. “We’re not actually saying ECT doesn’t work. We’re saying there’s no way to know whether it works or not on the basis of the current research, which, after 80 years of the treatment being used, is pretty amazing.”

On the other hand, Read said there is substantial evidence to suggest ECT causes significant adverse events. “Depending who you ask, the psychiatrists or the patients, somewhere between 12% and 55% of patients get permanent or persistent memory loss,” he said.

“So there is a very serious cost to its use, and if there’s a serious cost, you ... have to know that there’s a very strong efficacy benefit, and we just don’t know that. That’s why we’re calling for suspension until there is adequate research,” Read added.

The study was published in a recent issue of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.
 

Widespread use

ECT remains a popular treatment modality for resistant depression. Global data show that it is used to treat almost a million patients every year. Although ECT continues to be the subject of comparative research, the investigators say that most of these studies do not adhere to the same standards that govern clinical trials of other psychiatric medications and medical interventions.

The investigators also note that to date, only 11 placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy of ECT have been conducted. They write that the last study to compare ECT with sham or simulated ECT (SECT) – in which a general anesthetic was administered but the electricity was not – was performed in 1985. Nevertheless, this relatively small body of evidence has been the basis of many meta-analyses.

In the current review, the authors evaluated the impartiality and robustness of these previous meta-analyses and the quality of the studies that were included.

“The primary goal is not to assess whether or not ECT is effective,” they write. “The intent, instead, is to determine whether the available evidence is robust enough to answer that question.”

For Read, the decision to analyze the current state of ECT research was both personal and professional.

“As a young nursing attendant in a Bronx hospital, I had the job of sitting with people as they came around from ECT. It was my job to try to explain why they didn’t know who they were, where they were, why their head was throbbing, and why people would do something like that to them,” he said.

“On the research side, this is my sixth review, and in each one we’ve reached the same conclusion,” Read added.

Other research stands in direct opposition to the current review’s findings. Many studies have concluded that ECT is safe and effective for patients with depression.
 

Ongoing debate

A 2018 registry analysis showed no additional risk for cognitive impairment in patients who underwent ECT up to 40 years after therapy. A 2018 study also showed that ECT was efficacious and cost-effective for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

However, the ECT debate continues. As reported early last year, there seems to be little common ground between clinicians who believe in the utility of ECT for depression and those who vehemently do not.

For the current review, Read and colleagues performed a Medline search for meta-analyses of the efficacy of ECT for depression. Meta-analyses were only included if they comprised placebo-controlled trials that compared ECT with SECT.

Once the meta-analyses were identified, investigators assessed their component studies. This assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers who used a 24-point quality scale developed by the authors. This scale, the authors note, combines the “risk of bias” domains of the Cochrane Handbook Risk of Bias Tool with criteria related to quality of study design and reporting, as well as several criteria specific to ECT research.

The two reviewers were blinded to each other’s ratings. Interrater differences were resolved collectively.

The literature search yielded 83 potential articles; after exclusion criteria were applied, 14 remained. Three of these articles were literature reviews, one discussed different types of statistical analyses used in ECT research, one was a meta-analysis in Hungarian, one was a meta-analysis that compared ECT with SECT in a selected population of elderly people, and three focused on transcranial magnetic stimulation.

This left five meta-analyses for the review. These included from 1 to 7 of the 11 studies in question:

• Janicak et al, 1985 
• Kho, van Vreewijk, Simpson, & Zwinderman, 2003 
• Mutz et al, 2019 
• Pagnin, de Queiroz, Pini, & Cassano, 2004 
• UK ECT Review Group, 2003

The review revealed shortcomings with both the meta-analyses and the studies they included. The investigators found that the mean quality scores of the 11 studies (10.27 ± 2.45 and 11.91 ± 2.91) were not statistically different between the two raters (P = .17), whose scores were significantly correlated (P = .001).

Among the 264 total ratings, the investigators found 55 inconsistencies, which were all resolved by discussion. The mean final quality score for the 11 studies included in the review was 12.27 ± 3.20/24; eight scored 13 or less.

The results of these studies do little to support the benefits of ECT relative to SECT, the reviewers note. Indeed, only four concluded that ECT is significantly superior to SECT. Five found no significant difference, and the remaining two had mixed results.

What’s more, only two of what the investigators describe as “higher quality” studies reported follow-up data. Of these, one produced an effect size of 0.065 favoring ECT, the other showed a small benefit in favor of SECT (effect size, 0.299).

The investigators describe the five meta-analyses included in the review as “flawed,” stating that the meta-analyses “pay little or no attention to the multiple limitations of the studies they include.”

These limitations include the number of patients included in the studies (which average 37 patients); lack of a description of randomization and blinding processes; lack of patient ratings; selective reporting of findings; and the absence of assessment of patient quality of life. Furthermore, the authors note that none of the 11 studies “convincingly” demonstrate double-blinding.

Given these shortcomings, the investigators say the meta-analyses of ECT fail to prove the following:

• The short- and long-term efficacy benefits of ECT over SECT;
• Whether ECT is effective among patients who have failed other treatments for depression;
• Whether ECT prevents ;
• Whether ECT improves patients’ quality of life;
• Whether ECT is more effective in women than men;
• Whether ECT is effective in children or adolescents.

“Shoddy” research

The authors conclude that the review’s findings demonstrate the weakness of evidence that currently supports the use of ECT for depression.

“I would never have guessed how shoddy some of this research was,” said review coauthor Irving Kirsch, PhD, a lecturer on medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. Many of these shortcomings, Kirsch said, involve blinding and placebo effects.

“It’s not clear how you could ever run a truly blinded trial of ECT, given how pronounced the immediate side effects are,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And one of the things that’s underappreciated is the pronounced responses to placebo treatment with depression and severe depression. These can last for a very long time.”

Kirsch noted that more invasive placebo treatments, such as SECT, tend to have more pronounced effects.

“Not all placebos are created equal. We know, for example, that placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills and that placebo surgery can be extremely powerful,” he said.

The authors call for an immediate suspension of ECT until new studies address these research shortcomings.

“The doctors who perform ECT aren’t evil or stupid, they’re just ignorant of the research. What they see is very temporary benefit in some of the patients. The research suggests that about a third – half at most – get a very temporary lift in mood, which seems to be the sort of euphoria you get from mild brain injury,” Read explained.

“I have seen people who haven’t spoken or eaten for several weeks start speaking and eating, but we know that 4 weeks later, they’re going to be just as depressed as they were, or worse. And now they’re going to have brain damage as well,” said Read.

He added that physicians often don’t see long-term patient outcomes, just the immediate effect of ECT.
 

A “lifesaver”

No recent randomized controlled trials regarding ECT have been conducted because “no IRB [institutional review board] on planet earth will allow such a trial because of the overwhelming evidence of efficacy and the risk of anesthesia with no ECT,” noted Mark S. George, MD, the Layton McCurdy Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

It is a “logical fallacy” to conclude that ECT does not work because the trials were flawed, said George, who was not involved with the current review

“This is not supported by anything they have looked at,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not really a scientific study when you make conclusions that aren’t based on your data, or not what you set out to do. That’s what I find egregious here.”

The way he sees it, the utility of ECT is unquestionable. “It is our most effective acute treatment for depression, and it’s our most effective treatment for suicide,” he said.

“The authors of this review don’t see the patients that I see every day, who are catatonic, who can’t eat, who are suicidal. For those people, ECT is a lifesaver,” George added.
 

FDA’s position

Sameer Jauhar, MBChB, PhD, a consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, was equally unimpressed with the quality of the review.

“I try to approach everything with an open mind,” he said. “But as a doctor, if I’m reading about evidence, I expect a well-conducted meta-analysis and/or very clear systematic review with an adequate level of peer review.”

The current review, said Jauhar, doesn’t meet these criteria. He said the article reads more like a narrative review, one in which the authors dictated their own arbitrary criteria of study quality.

Most important, he said, is the fact that ECT has been the focus of a great deal of research. “The best quality synthesis of the evidence I’ve come across is the UK ECT Review Group’s 2003 meta-analysis, published in The Lancet, which asked this very question. None of the studies has changed since then.”

Jauhar also noted that in 2018, the Food and Drug Administration reclassified ECT from class III (higher risk) to class II (moderate risk). Use of ECT was also limited to treatment of “catatonia or a severe major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in patients age 13 years and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response treatment due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition.”

The FDA also noted that “[t]he safe use of ECT for treatment of these conditions has been well studied and is better understood than other uses. Therefore, sufficient information exists to establish special controls that mitigate known risks and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these two uses of ECT devices.”

As part of the FDA’s 2018 reclassification, ECT manufacturers were required to file a premarket approval application for all uses that were not reclassified. The full text of the order is available in the Federal Register.

“So the FDA has been through it, The Lancet has been through it, and the findings were clear,” said Jauhar. “It’s very easy to poke holes in studies that were conducted 30 or more years ago. But the fact is, the field has moved on.”

Jauhar acknowledged there are patients who have had bad experiences with ECT, and he accepts that such events occasionally occur. Nevertheless, he said, “as a piece of scientific work, I don’t know how anyone can give any credibility to this review at all.”

Jauhar also noted that the journal in which the review was published has a 2019 CiteScore of 0.3 and ranks in the 15th percentile of the Scopus Clinical Psychology category. He further noted that Kirsch is a member of the journal’s editorial board.

“I would say that the level of peer review here was negligible at best,” Jauhar said. “In addition, the ‘findings’ are driven more by ideology than evidence.”

Asked to respond to Jauhar’s comments, Kirsch noted that although he is on the journal’s advisory board, he has not been actively involved. Kirsch added that he serves on about a dozen academic advisory boards and serves as a reviewer for many top scientific and medical journals, including The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our article was peer reviewed,” Kirsch said, “and we revised it following the first round of reviews.” The review process did not differ from those he has gone through with more than 250 published peer-reviewed articles on which he was an author or coauthor, he noted.
 

A growing movement

Despite such expert opposition, the movement to suspend ECT continues. Recently, Sarah Price Hancock, MS, CRC, CPMC, who is herself a recipient of more than 100 ECT treatments, authored an international petition to standardize, regulate, and audit the modality. Hancock hopes to present the document, which currently has more than 6600 signatures, to the American Psychiatric Association and similar international societies.

A version of the petition was presented to the UK’s National Health Service on July 2, the 59th anniversary of the death by suicide of Ernest Hemingway, who had received some 20 ECT treatments himself.

“Hopefully by his 60th anniversary, America and the world will be taking his death and the thousands living with adverse reactions more seriously by auditing, regulating, and tracking patients with a history of ECT to provide much needed comprehensive brain injury rehabilitation as necessary,” Hancock told Medscape Medical News.

Among the signatories of the petition is Sue Cunliffe, MbChB, who underwent ECT for depression in 2004, with devastating effects. “I was left really badly brain damaged, and so I’ve never been allowed to work again,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Cunliffe said the immediate effects of the treatment were profound. She said her hands shook, her balance and coordination were impaired, and her memories evaporated. However, she found a neuropsychologist who she says was able to help her recover control of her life. “Now at least I’m able to plan my life so that I can live with the brain damage.”

Kirsch acknowledged that sorting through the ECT literature can be daunting. “If you’re a physician, you try to keep up with the literature, but the problem is, the literature is so old and done in ways which would not pass muster right now. The data are really poor, and I guess it’s just that people aren’t aware of it.”

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

“Does ECT have cognitive side effects? Unfortunately, it does. But so do lots of lifesaving therapies in medicine, like cancer chemotherapy,” he said.

“Nobody really gets well with a single ECT session. It’s usually eight to 12 over 3 or 4 weeks. So it’s not particularly durable. That’s why we often combine ECT with other forms of brain stimulation,” George added.

He noted that the recent advent of alternative forms of ECT – including right unilateral ultrabrief pulse ECT and focal electrically administered seizure therapy – are beginning to address some of these shortcomings.

“The holy grail of brain stimulation is to be able to do things less invasively, and we’re moving slowly in that direction,” he said. “But right now, we don’t have anything that is as acutely as effective as ECT. It is our lifesaver at the moment.”

The review authors as well as George, Jauhar, Cunliffe, and Hancock report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Experts are calling for the immediate suspension of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depression.

A new review by investigators led by John Read, PhD, University of East London, conclude there is no evidence to show that ECT is effective in either its target demographic or its target diagnostic group. They say its use should be suspended until more robust research proves it is safe and effective.

However, the review’s conclusions have been met with passionate opposition from expert psychiatrists who say ECT can be a lifesaving treatment for patients, many of whom have exhausted all other treatment options. Other clinicians maintain that the review itself is fraught with methodologic shortcomings that invalidate its conclusions.

“We’ve concluded there is no adequate research on which to base an answer to the question, ‘Does ECT work?,’ ” Read told Medscape Medical News. “We’re not actually saying ECT doesn’t work. We’re saying there’s no way to know whether it works or not on the basis of the current research, which, after 80 years of the treatment being used, is pretty amazing.”

On the other hand, Read said there is substantial evidence to suggest ECT causes significant adverse events. “Depending who you ask, the psychiatrists or the patients, somewhere between 12% and 55% of patients get permanent or persistent memory loss,” he said.

“So there is a very serious cost to its use, and if there’s a serious cost, you ... have to know that there’s a very strong efficacy benefit, and we just don’t know that. That’s why we’re calling for suspension until there is adequate research,” Read added.

The study was published in a recent issue of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.
 

Widespread use

ECT remains a popular treatment modality for resistant depression. Global data show that it is used to treat almost a million patients every year. Although ECT continues to be the subject of comparative research, the investigators say that most of these studies do not adhere to the same standards that govern clinical trials of other psychiatric medications and medical interventions.

The investigators also note that to date, only 11 placebo-controlled studies of the efficacy of ECT have been conducted. They write that the last study to compare ECT with sham or simulated ECT (SECT) – in which a general anesthetic was administered but the electricity was not – was performed in 1985. Nevertheless, this relatively small body of evidence has been the basis of many meta-analyses.

In the current review, the authors evaluated the impartiality and robustness of these previous meta-analyses and the quality of the studies that were included.

“The primary goal is not to assess whether or not ECT is effective,” they write. “The intent, instead, is to determine whether the available evidence is robust enough to answer that question.”

For Read, the decision to analyze the current state of ECT research was both personal and professional.

“As a young nursing attendant in a Bronx hospital, I had the job of sitting with people as they came around from ECT. It was my job to try to explain why they didn’t know who they were, where they were, why their head was throbbing, and why people would do something like that to them,” he said.

“On the research side, this is my sixth review, and in each one we’ve reached the same conclusion,” Read added.

Other research stands in direct opposition to the current review’s findings. Many studies have concluded that ECT is safe and effective for patients with depression.
 

Ongoing debate

A 2018 registry analysis showed no additional risk for cognitive impairment in patients who underwent ECT up to 40 years after therapy. A 2018 study also showed that ECT was efficacious and cost-effective for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

However, the ECT debate continues. As reported early last year, there seems to be little common ground between clinicians who believe in the utility of ECT for depression and those who vehemently do not.

For the current review, Read and colleagues performed a Medline search for meta-analyses of the efficacy of ECT for depression. Meta-analyses were only included if they comprised placebo-controlled trials that compared ECT with SECT.

Once the meta-analyses were identified, investigators assessed their component studies. This assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers who used a 24-point quality scale developed by the authors. This scale, the authors note, combines the “risk of bias” domains of the Cochrane Handbook Risk of Bias Tool with criteria related to quality of study design and reporting, as well as several criteria specific to ECT research.

The two reviewers were blinded to each other’s ratings. Interrater differences were resolved collectively.

The literature search yielded 83 potential articles; after exclusion criteria were applied, 14 remained. Three of these articles were literature reviews, one discussed different types of statistical analyses used in ECT research, one was a meta-analysis in Hungarian, one was a meta-analysis that compared ECT with SECT in a selected population of elderly people, and three focused on transcranial magnetic stimulation.

This left five meta-analyses for the review. These included from 1 to 7 of the 11 studies in question:

• Janicak et al, 1985 
• Kho, van Vreewijk, Simpson, & Zwinderman, 2003 
• Mutz et al, 2019 
• Pagnin, de Queiroz, Pini, & Cassano, 2004 
• UK ECT Review Group, 2003

The review revealed shortcomings with both the meta-analyses and the studies they included. The investigators found that the mean quality scores of the 11 studies (10.27 ± 2.45 and 11.91 ± 2.91) were not statistically different between the two raters (P = .17), whose scores were significantly correlated (P = .001).

Among the 264 total ratings, the investigators found 55 inconsistencies, which were all resolved by discussion. The mean final quality score for the 11 studies included in the review was 12.27 ± 3.20/24; eight scored 13 or less.

The results of these studies do little to support the benefits of ECT relative to SECT, the reviewers note. Indeed, only four concluded that ECT is significantly superior to SECT. Five found no significant difference, and the remaining two had mixed results.

What’s more, only two of what the investigators describe as “higher quality” studies reported follow-up data. Of these, one produced an effect size of 0.065 favoring ECT, the other showed a small benefit in favor of SECT (effect size, 0.299).

The investigators describe the five meta-analyses included in the review as “flawed,” stating that the meta-analyses “pay little or no attention to the multiple limitations of the studies they include.”

These limitations include the number of patients included in the studies (which average 37 patients); lack of a description of randomization and blinding processes; lack of patient ratings; selective reporting of findings; and the absence of assessment of patient quality of life. Furthermore, the authors note that none of the 11 studies “convincingly” demonstrate double-blinding.

Given these shortcomings, the investigators say the meta-analyses of ECT fail to prove the following:

• The short- and long-term efficacy benefits of ECT over SECT;
• Whether ECT is effective among patients who have failed other treatments for depression;
• Whether ECT prevents ;
• Whether ECT improves patients’ quality of life;
• Whether ECT is more effective in women than men;
• Whether ECT is effective in children or adolescents.

“Shoddy” research

The authors conclude that the review’s findings demonstrate the weakness of evidence that currently supports the use of ECT for depression.

“I would never have guessed how shoddy some of this research was,” said review coauthor Irving Kirsch, PhD, a lecturer on medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. Many of these shortcomings, Kirsch said, involve blinding and placebo effects.

“It’s not clear how you could ever run a truly blinded trial of ECT, given how pronounced the immediate side effects are,” he told Medscape Medical News. “And one of the things that’s underappreciated is the pronounced responses to placebo treatment with depression and severe depression. These can last for a very long time.”

Kirsch noted that more invasive placebo treatments, such as SECT, tend to have more pronounced effects.

“Not all placebos are created equal. We know, for example, that placebo injections are more effective than placebo pills and that placebo surgery can be extremely powerful,” he said.

The authors call for an immediate suspension of ECT until new studies address these research shortcomings.

“The doctors who perform ECT aren’t evil or stupid, they’re just ignorant of the research. What they see is very temporary benefit in some of the patients. The research suggests that about a third – half at most – get a very temporary lift in mood, which seems to be the sort of euphoria you get from mild brain injury,” Read explained.

“I have seen people who haven’t spoken or eaten for several weeks start speaking and eating, but we know that 4 weeks later, they’re going to be just as depressed as they were, or worse. And now they’re going to have brain damage as well,” said Read.

He added that physicians often don’t see long-term patient outcomes, just the immediate effect of ECT.
 

A “lifesaver”

No recent randomized controlled trials regarding ECT have been conducted because “no IRB [institutional review board] on planet earth will allow such a trial because of the overwhelming evidence of efficacy and the risk of anesthesia with no ECT,” noted Mark S. George, MD, the Layton McCurdy Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

It is a “logical fallacy” to conclude that ECT does not work because the trials were flawed, said George, who was not involved with the current review

“This is not supported by anything they have looked at,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s not really a scientific study when you make conclusions that aren’t based on your data, or not what you set out to do. That’s what I find egregious here.”

The way he sees it, the utility of ECT is unquestionable. “It is our most effective acute treatment for depression, and it’s our most effective treatment for suicide,” he said.

“The authors of this review don’t see the patients that I see every day, who are catatonic, who can’t eat, who are suicidal. For those people, ECT is a lifesaver,” George added.
 

FDA’s position

Sameer Jauhar, MBChB, PhD, a consultant psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, was equally unimpressed with the quality of the review.

“I try to approach everything with an open mind,” he said. “But as a doctor, if I’m reading about evidence, I expect a well-conducted meta-analysis and/or very clear systematic review with an adequate level of peer review.”

The current review, said Jauhar, doesn’t meet these criteria. He said the article reads more like a narrative review, one in which the authors dictated their own arbitrary criteria of study quality.

Most important, he said, is the fact that ECT has been the focus of a great deal of research. “The best quality synthesis of the evidence I’ve come across is the UK ECT Review Group’s 2003 meta-analysis, published in The Lancet, which asked this very question. None of the studies has changed since then.”

Jauhar also noted that in 2018, the Food and Drug Administration reclassified ECT from class III (higher risk) to class II (moderate risk). Use of ECT was also limited to treatment of “catatonia or a severe major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in patients age 13 years and older who are treatment-resistant or who require a rapid response treatment due to the severity of their psychiatric or medical condition.”

The FDA also noted that “[t]he safe use of ECT for treatment of these conditions has been well studied and is better understood than other uses. Therefore, sufficient information exists to establish special controls that mitigate known risks and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these two uses of ECT devices.”

As part of the FDA’s 2018 reclassification, ECT manufacturers were required to file a premarket approval application for all uses that were not reclassified. The full text of the order is available in the Federal Register.

“So the FDA has been through it, The Lancet has been through it, and the findings were clear,” said Jauhar. “It’s very easy to poke holes in studies that were conducted 30 or more years ago. But the fact is, the field has moved on.”

Jauhar acknowledged there are patients who have had bad experiences with ECT, and he accepts that such events occasionally occur. Nevertheless, he said, “as a piece of scientific work, I don’t know how anyone can give any credibility to this review at all.”

Jauhar also noted that the journal in which the review was published has a 2019 CiteScore of 0.3 and ranks in the 15th percentile of the Scopus Clinical Psychology category. He further noted that Kirsch is a member of the journal’s editorial board.

“I would say that the level of peer review here was negligible at best,” Jauhar said. “In addition, the ‘findings’ are driven more by ideology than evidence.”

Asked to respond to Jauhar’s comments, Kirsch noted that although he is on the journal’s advisory board, he has not been actively involved. Kirsch added that he serves on about a dozen academic advisory boards and serves as a reviewer for many top scientific and medical journals, including The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Our article was peer reviewed,” Kirsch said, “and we revised it following the first round of reviews.” The review process did not differ from those he has gone through with more than 250 published peer-reviewed articles on which he was an author or coauthor, he noted.
 

A growing movement

Despite such expert opposition, the movement to suspend ECT continues. Recently, Sarah Price Hancock, MS, CRC, CPMC, who is herself a recipient of more than 100 ECT treatments, authored an international petition to standardize, regulate, and audit the modality. Hancock hopes to present the document, which currently has more than 6600 signatures, to the American Psychiatric Association and similar international societies.

A version of the petition was presented to the UK’s National Health Service on July 2, the 59th anniversary of the death by suicide of Ernest Hemingway, who had received some 20 ECT treatments himself.

“Hopefully by his 60th anniversary, America and the world will be taking his death and the thousands living with adverse reactions more seriously by auditing, regulating, and tracking patients with a history of ECT to provide much needed comprehensive brain injury rehabilitation as necessary,” Hancock told Medscape Medical News.

Among the signatories of the petition is Sue Cunliffe, MbChB, who underwent ECT for depression in 2004, with devastating effects. “I was left really badly brain damaged, and so I’ve never been allowed to work again,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Cunliffe said the immediate effects of the treatment were profound. She said her hands shook, her balance and coordination were impaired, and her memories evaporated. However, she found a neuropsychologist who she says was able to help her recover control of her life. “Now at least I’m able to plan my life so that I can live with the brain damage.”

Kirsch acknowledged that sorting through the ECT literature can be daunting. “If you’re a physician, you try to keep up with the literature, but the problem is, the literature is so old and done in ways which would not pass muster right now. The data are really poor, and I guess it’s just that people aren’t aware of it.”

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

“Does ECT have cognitive side effects? Unfortunately, it does. But so do lots of lifesaving therapies in medicine, like cancer chemotherapy,” he said.

“Nobody really gets well with a single ECT session. It’s usually eight to 12 over 3 or 4 weeks. So it’s not particularly durable. That’s why we often combine ECT with other forms of brain stimulation,” George added.

He noted that the recent advent of alternative forms of ECT – including right unilateral ultrabrief pulse ECT and focal electrically administered seizure therapy – are beginning to address some of these shortcomings.

“The holy grail of brain stimulation is to be able to do things less invasively, and we’re moving slowly in that direction,” he said. “But right now, we don’t have anything that is as acutely as effective as ECT. It is our lifesaver at the moment.”

The review authors as well as George, Jauhar, Cunliffe, and Hancock report no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most psychiatrists live at or below their means, and more than half have a net worth of less than $1 million, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

An important caveat, however, is that the data for this year’s report were collected as part of the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, prior to Feb. 11, 2020 – and before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.

Although it will be some time before medical practices become accustomed to a new version of normal, the data provide an overall picture of the debt load and net worth of psychiatrists.
 

Among the lowest earners

According to the Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020, psychiatrists are among the lowest earners of all physicians, earning $268,000 on average this year. However, that’s up somewhat from last year’s earnings of $260,000.

Among psychiatrists, 57% report a net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) of less than $1 million; 38% have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% top $5 million in net worth.

Among specialists, orthopedists are most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%), according to the overall Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. The report is based on more than 17,000 physicians and spans 30 specialties.

By gender, more female than male psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $1 million (61% vs. 53%). The percentages are closer between female and male psychiatrists who have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, at 36% and 41%, respectively. In addition, more male than female psychiatrists have a net worth above $5 million (6% vs. 3%).

As expected, the older the physician, the more money they have as earnings increase and early-career debt decreases. This is the case for psychiatrists, whose net worth over $1 million increased with age.

However, psychiatrists are among the most likely of all physicians to have a net worth of less than $500,000 (at 37%), which is on par with public health and preventive medicine physicians (also at 37%) and just below family medicine physicians (at 46%), pediatricians (44%), neurologists (41%), and internal medicine physicians (40%).

For nearly two-thirds of psychiatrists (63%), mortgage payments on their primary residence are the major expense; 39% of psychiatrists have a mortgage of $300,000 or less, and 12% have a mortgage topping $500,000; 31% have no mortgage at all. Six in 10 psychiatrists live in a house that is 3,000 sq ft or smaller.

Mortgage aside, other top ongoing expenses for psychiatrists are car payments (38%), school loan payments (28%), credit card debt (26%), and medical expenses for self or loved one (20%). At 28%, psychiatrists are toward the top of the list of all physicians when it comes to those still paying off loans for education.
 

Spending vs. saving

The average American has four credit cards, according to the credit reporting agency Experian. More than half of psychiatrists said they have four or fewer credit cards (35% have three or four credit cards, 20% have one or two cards, and 1% have none). A quarter of psychiatrists (25%) have five or six credit cards, and 19% have seven or more at their disposal.

Only a small percentage of psychiatrists (7%) say they live above their means; 53% live at their means, and 39% live below their means.

Most psychiatrists (62%) contribute $1,000 or more to a tax-deferred retirement or college savings account each month; 13% do not do this on a regular basis. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of psychiatrists contribute to a taxable savings account, a tool many use when tax-deferred contributions have reached their limit.

Nearly half of psychiatrists (47%) rely on a mental budget for personal expenses; 16% rely on a written budget or use software or an app for budgeting; and 37% don’t have a budget for personal expenses.

Three-quarters of psychiatrists did not experience a financial loss in 2019. Of those who did have a loss, the main causes were bad investments (6%) and practice-related problems (6%). Other factors were job loss (self or spouse/partner), real estate loss (4%), legal fees (3%), and divorce (3%).

Among psychiatrists who have joint finances with a spouse or partner, 51% pool their income to pay household expenses. For 14%, the person who earns more pays more of the bills and/or expenses. Only a small percentage divide bills and expenses equally, regardless of how much each makes (5%).

About 43% of psychiatrists currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past, 40% never did, and 17% met with a financial planner but did not pursue working with that person.

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

Most psychiatrists live at or below their means, and more than half have a net worth of less than $1 million, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

An important caveat, however, is that the data for this year’s report were collected as part of the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, prior to Feb. 11, 2020 – and before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.

Although it will be some time before medical practices become accustomed to a new version of normal, the data provide an overall picture of the debt load and net worth of psychiatrists.
 

Among the lowest earners

According to the Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020, psychiatrists are among the lowest earners of all physicians, earning $268,000 on average this year. However, that’s up somewhat from last year’s earnings of $260,000.

Among psychiatrists, 57% report a net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) of less than $1 million; 38% have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% top $5 million in net worth.

Among specialists, orthopedists are most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%), according to the overall Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. The report is based on more than 17,000 physicians and spans 30 specialties.

By gender, more female than male psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $1 million (61% vs. 53%). The percentages are closer between female and male psychiatrists who have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, at 36% and 41%, respectively. In addition, more male than female psychiatrists have a net worth above $5 million (6% vs. 3%).

As expected, the older the physician, the more money they have as earnings increase and early-career debt decreases. This is the case for psychiatrists, whose net worth over $1 million increased with age.

However, psychiatrists are among the most likely of all physicians to have a net worth of less than $500,000 (at 37%), which is on par with public health and preventive medicine physicians (also at 37%) and just below family medicine physicians (at 46%), pediatricians (44%), neurologists (41%), and internal medicine physicians (40%).

For nearly two-thirds of psychiatrists (63%), mortgage payments on their primary residence are the major expense; 39% of psychiatrists have a mortgage of $300,000 or less, and 12% have a mortgage topping $500,000; 31% have no mortgage at all. Six in 10 psychiatrists live in a house that is 3,000 sq ft or smaller.

Mortgage aside, other top ongoing expenses for psychiatrists are car payments (38%), school loan payments (28%), credit card debt (26%), and medical expenses for self or loved one (20%). At 28%, psychiatrists are toward the top of the list of all physicians when it comes to those still paying off loans for education.
 

Spending vs. saving

The average American has four credit cards, according to the credit reporting agency Experian. More than half of psychiatrists said they have four or fewer credit cards (35% have three or four credit cards, 20% have one or two cards, and 1% have none). A quarter of psychiatrists (25%) have five or six credit cards, and 19% have seven or more at their disposal.

Only a small percentage of psychiatrists (7%) say they live above their means; 53% live at their means, and 39% live below their means.

Most psychiatrists (62%) contribute $1,000 or more to a tax-deferred retirement or college savings account each month; 13% do not do this on a regular basis. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of psychiatrists contribute to a taxable savings account, a tool many use when tax-deferred contributions have reached their limit.

Nearly half of psychiatrists (47%) rely on a mental budget for personal expenses; 16% rely on a written budget or use software or an app for budgeting; and 37% don’t have a budget for personal expenses.

Three-quarters of psychiatrists did not experience a financial loss in 2019. Of those who did have a loss, the main causes were bad investments (6%) and practice-related problems (6%). Other factors were job loss (self or spouse/partner), real estate loss (4%), legal fees (3%), and divorce (3%).

Among psychiatrists who have joint finances with a spouse or partner, 51% pool their income to pay household expenses. For 14%, the person who earns more pays more of the bills and/or expenses. Only a small percentage divide bills and expenses equally, regardless of how much each makes (5%).

About 43% of psychiatrists currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past, 40% never did, and 17% met with a financial planner but did not pursue working with that person.

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

Most psychiatrists live at or below their means, and more than half have a net worth of less than $1 million, according to the Medscape Psychiatrist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

An important caveat, however, is that the data for this year’s report were collected as part of the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020, prior to Feb. 11, 2020 – and before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic.

Although it will be some time before medical practices become accustomed to a new version of normal, the data provide an overall picture of the debt load and net worth of psychiatrists.
 

Among the lowest earners

According to the Medscape Psychiatrist Compensation Report 2020, psychiatrists are among the lowest earners of all physicians, earning $268,000 on average this year. However, that’s up somewhat from last year’s earnings of $260,000.

Among psychiatrists, 57% report a net worth (total assets minus total liabilities) of less than $1 million; 38% have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% top $5 million in net worth.

Among specialists, orthopedists are most likely (at 19%) to top the $5 million level, followed by plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists (both at 16%), according to the overall Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. The report is based on more than 17,000 physicians and spans 30 specialties.

By gender, more female than male psychiatrists have a net worth of less than $1 million (61% vs. 53%). The percentages are closer between female and male psychiatrists who have a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, at 36% and 41%, respectively. In addition, more male than female psychiatrists have a net worth above $5 million (6% vs. 3%).

As expected, the older the physician, the more money they have as earnings increase and early-career debt decreases. This is the case for psychiatrists, whose net worth over $1 million increased with age.

However, psychiatrists are among the most likely of all physicians to have a net worth of less than $500,000 (at 37%), which is on par with public health and preventive medicine physicians (also at 37%) and just below family medicine physicians (at 46%), pediatricians (44%), neurologists (41%), and internal medicine physicians (40%).

For nearly two-thirds of psychiatrists (63%), mortgage payments on their primary residence are the major expense; 39% of psychiatrists have a mortgage of $300,000 or less, and 12% have a mortgage topping $500,000; 31% have no mortgage at all. Six in 10 psychiatrists live in a house that is 3,000 sq ft or smaller.

Mortgage aside, other top ongoing expenses for psychiatrists are car payments (38%), school loan payments (28%), credit card debt (26%), and medical expenses for self or loved one (20%). At 28%, psychiatrists are toward the top of the list of all physicians when it comes to those still paying off loans for education.
 

Spending vs. saving

The average American has four credit cards, according to the credit reporting agency Experian. More than half of psychiatrists said they have four or fewer credit cards (35% have three or four credit cards, 20% have one or two cards, and 1% have none). A quarter of psychiatrists (25%) have five or six credit cards, and 19% have seven or more at their disposal.

Only a small percentage of psychiatrists (7%) say they live above their means; 53% live at their means, and 39% live below their means.

Most psychiatrists (62%) contribute $1,000 or more to a tax-deferred retirement or college savings account each month; 13% do not do this on a regular basis. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of psychiatrists contribute to a taxable savings account, a tool many use when tax-deferred contributions have reached their limit.

Nearly half of psychiatrists (47%) rely on a mental budget for personal expenses; 16% rely on a written budget or use software or an app for budgeting; and 37% don’t have a budget for personal expenses.

Three-quarters of psychiatrists did not experience a financial loss in 2019. Of those who did have a loss, the main causes were bad investments (6%) and practice-related problems (6%). Other factors were job loss (self or spouse/partner), real estate loss (4%), legal fees (3%), and divorce (3%).

Among psychiatrists who have joint finances with a spouse or partner, 51% pool their income to pay household expenses. For 14%, the person who earns more pays more of the bills and/or expenses. Only a small percentage divide bills and expenses equally, regardless of how much each makes (5%).

About 43% of psychiatrists currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past, 40% never did, and 17% met with a financial planner but did not pursue working with that person.

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

An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.

He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.

The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.

Discussion

Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.¹ It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.² The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.³ The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.⁴ A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.⁵

The origin of the NSC

The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.⁶ The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.⁷ The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.

The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.⁸

Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”⁹ They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.

Possible NSC common factors

Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.¹⁰

The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.

The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. Participants in the CRP arm were 76% less likely to attempt suicide over 6 months, although this effect decreased and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.

The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.

Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.¹¹

Conclusion

Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”

Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.

Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.

In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
 

References

1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.

2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.

3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.

5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.

6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.

7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.

8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.

9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.

10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.

11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
 

Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.




 

An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.

He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.

The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.

Discussion

Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.¹ It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.² The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.³ The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.⁴ A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.⁵

The origin of the NSC

The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.⁶ The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.⁷ The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.

The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.⁸

Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”⁹ They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.

Possible NSC common factors

Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.¹⁰

The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.

The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. Participants in the CRP arm were 76% less likely to attempt suicide over 6 months, although this effect decreased and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.

The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.

Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.¹¹

Conclusion

Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”

Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.

Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.

In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
 

References

1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.

2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.

3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.

5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.

6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.

7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.

8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.

9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.

10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.

11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
 

Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.




 

An elderly, retired, married African American man sought psychiatric treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. He had a detailed, lethal suicide plan, but he had not taken any steps to carry it out.

He met DSM-5 criteria for a major depressive episode, and he described a lifelong history of recurrent depressions as well as hypomanic episodes. He was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder, and he began weekly therapy, as well as medication. Despite several static and dynamic suicide risk factors, the psychiatrist also noted that he was help seeking and future oriented. He seemed transparent during his initial appointments. He did not have access to lethal means and welcomed the psychiatrist to communicate openly with his spouse.

The patient had never attempted suicide, there was no family history of suicide, and there was no psychosis or substance use disorder present. He was able to commit to reaching out to the psychiatrist, his spouse, or emergency personnel in the case of worsening suicidal thoughts or imminent suicidal action. He remained in the outpatient setting. His suicidal ideation faded and depression receded as psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy continued.

Discussion

Depression and suicidal ideation are ubiquitous in the practice of psychiatry. Psychiatrists draw from an array of assessment and management tools when this common clinical challenge arises. Among these tools is the no-suicide contract (NSC). The NSC goes by many names, including the no-harm contract and suicide prevention contract.¹ It is a promise, verbal or written, from the patient to not attempt suicide and to tell a loved one or psychiatric provider instead.² The verbal exchange between the patient and therapist described in the case fits the widely accepted clinical definition of an NSC. The contents and implementation of NSCs vary greatly; no standard approach is taught in psychiatric training.³ The American Psychiatric Association has warned against over-reliance on them, emphasizing that they have not been proven effective. It advises that NSCs should not be used independently of other tools or outside well-established patient-provider relationships.⁴ A 2007 review of the literature on NSCs concluded that there were no data to support their effectiveness and some data that they might even cause harm.⁵

The origin of the NSC

The NSC is fairly young and its foundation arguably weak. Its evolution has been traced back to a study published in 1973 by Robert C. Drye, MD, and associates on the effectiveness of a questionnaire for the assessment of suicide risk.⁶ The questionnaire centered on the patient’s reaction to the statement, “No matter what happens, I will not kill myself, accidently or on purpose, at any time.” The authors placed special emphasis on the words “I will,” which they felt to be a stronger indicator of commitment to safety than “I promise.” The authors thought the latter statement sounded like a child’s empty reply to a demanding parent. The authors reported a 100% success rate with “approximately 600 patients” across geographic regions and clinical settings.⁷ The study group is not further described, and that the authors contend that the intervention had “complete effectiveness in evaluating suicide risk” should give pause to anyone aiming to practice evidence-based psychiatry.

The theoretical basis of the NSC has been presumed by others to be based, in part, on the principles of transactional analysis. Specifically, the suicidal patient is seen as occupying the child ego state, and the NSC is seen as a means of moving the patient into the less problematic adult ego state. It has been argued, however, that an NSC can achieve exactly the opposite. The contract can pit the patient against the clinician, entrenching the patient deeper into the child ego and, therefore, suicidal state.⁸

Michael Craig Miller, MD, and associates proposed other psychological reasons why NSCs may be counterproductive. They write, “Psychological pitfalls abound, and any of them may contribute to a contract being thoughtless, unrealistic, irrelevant, cynical, punitive, or coercive.”⁹ They postulated that the NSC grew out of and assumes the same shared decision-making inherent in any therapeutic contract – and they argue that this assumption is flawed given the legal power clinicians have over suicidal patients. While acknowledging this problematic power differential, the authors go on to urge clinicians to aim for shared decision-making and a shared burden of risk when discussing treatment with suicidal patients.

Possible NSC common factors

Psychiatry, like the rest of medicine, is increasingly practiced in an evidence-based manner. The NSC should not be excluded from this movement. To this end, a recently published, randomized study of 97 active duty Army personnel seeking emergency behavioral health evaluation compared the effectiveness of NSCs and with an alternative intervention, the crisis response plan (CRP). The CRP was chosen because it had been suggested by the Joint Commision as an alternative to the NSC, although it also has little evidence supporting its use.¹⁰

The NSC and CRP interventions of the Army study were very similar. Both included suicide risk assessment, supportive listening, provision of crisis resources, and referral to treatment. In addition, the NSC intervention included asking whether the patients could keep themselves safe at home. The CRP intervention included collaboration with the patient to identify warning signs of crisis, self-management skills, and support persons. A seemingly small but interesting difference between the two interventions was which member of the dyad, patient or clinician, created a written record of the discussion. In the NSC group, the assessor did the writing, while in the CRP group, the patient controlled the pen.

The results of the study were intriguing. Suicidal ideation declined faster in the CRP arm. Participants in the CRP arm were 76% less likely to attempt suicide over 6 months, although this effect decreased and lost statistical significance when controlling for baseline severity of suicidal ideation. Despite those promising data, the only completed suicide was in the CRP arm.

The authors compared the makeup of the CRP intervention with key components of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). They pointed to a 2015 study by Marsha Linehan, PhD, and associates that sought to identify the active ingredients of DBT. The Linehan study indicated that attending to warning signs and using self-management tools and social supports contributed more to the success of DBT than the individual therapy component. Interestingly, these were the same features that set the CRP intervention apart from the NSC in the Army study. Perhaps these are the common factors of effective counseling of suicidal patients.

Indeed, these factors seem to harken back to the NSC as originally envisioned by the late Dr. Drye – a patient-driven collaboration. Dr. Drye and associates wrote: “This approach developed out of our belief that the only therapeutic contracts likely to lead to change are those developed by the patient himself, for which he will assume responsibility.” While the data presented by Dr. Drye and associates were weak, the theory behind their NSC – patient commitment – seems solid. Commitment strategies, which grew out of social psychology, are effective and heavily used in DBT, including to decrease suicidal behaviors.¹¹

Conclusion

Suicidologist Shawn Christopher Shea, MD, argues that the answer to whether or not NSCs can work is conditional on the unique combination of patient, clinician, and therapeutic relationship at play. He considers the limited data available and has warned against resolutely assuming either a pro- or anti-NSC stance. He postulates that NSCs might have the best chance at saving a life in the context of ongoing therapy with a patient with mature defenses, while in other contexts, such as with a patient with borderline personality disorder, it might prove counterproductive. Importantly, he wrote, “there is not a shred of empirical evidence that safety contracting has not been a deterrent with specific clients in the hands of specific clinicians.”

Dr. Shea describes various ways of maximizing the utility of the NSC. First, he describes that NSCs may be more effective as safety assessment tools (paying attention to both verbal and nonverbal cues) than tools to directly deter attempts. Second, NSCs may have increased utility when repeated across time to provide an understanding for how the patient typically engages in contracting. Soliciting a patient’s reasons for living also can enhance a contract’s usefulness because patients with suicidal ideation weigh reasons for living against reasons for dying in their decision-making. Finally, the sound documentation of the process of contracting not only protects against subsequent legal action but also improves the quality of the clinical care, in part by entraining the psychiatrist to incorporate key elements into the contracting process.

Returning to the clinical case, the strengths and weakness of that NSC can now be evaluated. Looking at the NSC through the eyes of Dr. Shea, the young therapeutic relationship diminishes the value of the NSC, while the relationship’s ongoing basis and the patient’s mature defenses bolster it. Dr. Shea would encourage the psychiatrist to use the NSC as an assessment tool, including assessment of ambivalence. In this case, the patient’s ambivalence about suicide comes through, but it could have been explored and expanded through explicit discussion of reasons for living. Applying the lens of Dr. Linehan, the contract is strengthened by the attention paid to social supports, while it would have been improved by specific discussion about warning signs and self-management tools.

In line with Dr. Drye’s original vision of the NSC, the degree to which the patient owns the NSC seems to be particularly crucial. In this case, the patient’s ownership of the no-suicide decision was suggested by his transparency during interview and full engagement in contracting, including identification of crisis resources. Still, the patient could have been encouraged to take additional responsibility for the NSC. One means of transferring responsibility to the patient could have been giving the patient a pen to create a written record of the contract, mobilizing and symbolizing the patient’s greater control of the process and outcome. Finally, and of utmost importance, it should be reiterated that the NSC should be only part of the assessment and planning that a psychiatrist does with a suicidal patient. While there are circumstances and strategies that augment its utility, it should not be overly relied on.
 

References

1. Weiss A. Am J Psychother. 2001;55(3):414-9.

2. Kroll J. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1684-6.

3. Shea SC. The Practical Art of Suicide Assessment: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals and Substance Abuse Counselors. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

4. Jacobs DG et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behavior. American Psychiatric Association, 2003 Nov.

5. Lewis LM. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007;37(1):50-7.

6. Goin M. Psychiatr News. 2003 Jul 18;38(14):3-38.

7. Drye RC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 1973;130(2):171-4.

8. Farrow TL. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Apr;10(2):199-202.

9. Miller MC et al. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1998;6(2):78-87.

10. Bryan CJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr;212:64-72.

11. Pederson LD. Dialectical Behavior Therapy: A Contemporary Guide for Practitioners. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
 

Dr. Roberts is a board-certified psychiatrist in Northern Virginia, working in both the partial hospital and outpatient settings. She has a special interest in working with patients with serious mental illness and believes in the recovery model of care, in which each patient’s life goals become the focal point of their treatment. Dr. Roberts completed her psychiatry residency at George Washington University, in Washington, where she also served as the 2018-2019 chief outpatient resident. She is a native of Minnesota and earned her medical degree from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in 2015. Dr. Roberts has no disclosures.




 

The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.

doomu/Thinkstock

(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.

When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.

Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.

After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.

Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
 

“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1

She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.

“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.²

Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,³ including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.

Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.


References

1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.

2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.

3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
 

Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.

The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.

doomu/Thinkstock

(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.

When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.

Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.

After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.

Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
 

“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1

She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.

“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.²

Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,³ including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.

Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.


References

1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.

2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.

3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
 

Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.

The 2012 crime fiction novel, “Defending Jacob,” by William Landay was dramatized into a miniseries created by Mark Bomback that premiered on April 24, 2020, on Apple TV+ (and for those resisting a subscription, “The Morning Show” and “Defending Jacob” are both worth it). Both the “Defending Jacob” novel and the miniseries have themes that are of interest to psychiatry, especially to child and forensic psychiatrists, and both the literary and TV versions are excellent, albeit disturbing, diversions from the current pandemic.

doomu/Thinkstock

(Spoiler alert!) The story is set in the affluent town of Newton, Mass., where crime is generally low and homicides extremely infrequent. Protagonist Andy Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish assistant district attorney, is played by a younger Chris Evans in the miniseries. His wife, Laurie Gold Barber, a 51-year-old Jewish former schoolteacher and stay-at-home mom, is played by a younger Michelle Dockery of Downton Abbey fame. In the miniseries, her character is actively working as a teacher and social activist for children. Other differences between the novel and the miniseries will be pointed out when relevant, but the overall narrative is similar. Both stories are cleverly told through Andy Barber speaking in retrospect as he is being questioned in front of a grand jury for a potential indictment.

When 14-year-old Ben Rifkin is found stabbed to death in Cold Spring Park before school one morning, Andy Barber initially takes the case despite his boss’s reservations that there may be a conflict because Andy’s son Jacob is a student in Ben’s class at school. As the title suggests, it soon becomes clear that Jacob may have had something to do with the murder. At that point, Andy is taken off the case and it is given to a junior colleague, Neal Logiudice, who demonstrates both admiration and contempt for his former mentor, perhaps because of underlying jealousy and insecurity. Neal Logiudice becomes the DA questioning Andy Barber.

Prior to Jacob’s formal accusation of murder, the Barbers appear to be fiercely loyal and unable to fully see and understand their son. The difficulty with objectivity and the reasons why family member physicians should never treat family members – and why family member attorneys should never represent loved ones – is abundantly clear in this story. When Andy receives an anonymous tip that Jacob’s childhood best friend, Derek Yoo, posted on Facebook, “Jake, everyone knows you did it. You have a knife. I’ve seen it,’ ” Andy then looks through Jacob’s drawers and finds a folding knife in one of his T-shirts. In the chapter aptly titled “Denial,” Andy, an experienced prosecutor, does not turn the knife over as evidence, but instead disposes of it – believing Jacob that he did not take the knife to school the day his classmate was stabbed.

After Jacob is indicted, Andy Barber confesses to his wife, Laurie, that his estranged father who left when he was 6 is actually in prison convicted of murdering and raping a woman. In the novel, his grandfather and great-grandfather are also convicted felons. Laurie reveals this family history to Jacob’s attorney, and the attorney subsequently refers the family to a forensic psychologist. In the novel, she is a large Jewish woman; in the miniseries she is played by a very thin Poorna Jagannathan (who incidentally has portrayed a therapist in the television series “Sorry for your Loss,” and a doctor in “The Act,” “Better Call Saul,” “NCIS: Los Angeles,” “House of Cards,” “The Game,” “Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” “Rescue Me,” “Jonny Zero,” “An Actor Prepares,” “The Circle,” “Thanks for Sharing,” and “Montclair.”) Although the goal of the defense was a finding of “not guilty,” a psychiatric defense was going to be used as a last resort if necessary.

Laurie had already googled and learned of “the murder gene,” which was further explained by the forensic psychologist as a mutation called:
 

“MAOA Knockout. It has been argued in court as a trigger for violence before, but the argument was too simplistic, and it was rejected. Our understanding of the gene-environment interplay has improved since then – the science is getting better and very quickly – and we may have better testimony now. The second mutation is located in what’s called the serotonin transporter gene. The official name for the gene is SLC6A4. It’s located on chromosome 17. It encodes a protein that facilitates the activity of the serotonin transporter system, which is what enables the reuptake of serotonin from the synapse back into the neuron.”1

She further explains that there have been many studies on the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture question and that, with new developments in DNA studies, it is now becoming possible to study the “nature” side.

“Defending Jacob” explores the nature/nurture issue, as well as issues with forensic testimony in court and the criminal justice system in general. The issue of repressing feelings and hiding secrets and then having to confront both in a brutal manner is another theme addressed in the story. Andy tried to hide and forget that his father was in prison and the criminal history in his family, but he was forced to face this and his feelings about it when confronted with his own son being accused of murder. Of note, he does not seek help from a therapist despite these life-altering events. (Humongous spoiler alert:) The story that began with a murder of an unrelated child may end with a family murder, one that would be well described and could be understood by psychiatrists using the categories of motives initially described by Phillip Resnick, MD.²

Once again, and unfortunately, as we have pointed out in other media reviews, the portrayal of psychiatric/psychological themes is problematic. Using a psychologist to explain the science of DNA and not a psychiatrist is an interesting choice. Diagnosing a 14-year-old with personality disorders also contributes to misunderstanding and stigma. In addition, no timely attempt is made to refer the accused Jacob for mental health treatment. The stigmatization of psychiatry in the media was addressed by the World Psychiatric Association task force guidance on how to combat stigmatization of psychiatry and psychiatrists,³ including breaking down negative views of psychiatrists and psychiatry in the general public, among medical students, other health professionals, and patients and relatives. The task force made recommendations for national psychiatric societies and for individual practitioners to help reduce stigma of the profession of psychiatry. We would argue that speaking to the media, including fiction authors, to help educate about mental health is an important role for psychiatrists. It would lead to more realistic portrayals in film and books.

Overall, “Defending Jacob” is a compelling story in both the novel and the miniseries. Despite some problems with how it depicts mental health issues, both are engaging and contain thoughtful, extremely well-written themes of interest to many clinical and forensic psychiatrists.


References

1. Landay W. Defending Jacob, a novel. New York: Delacorte Press, 2012.

2. Friedman SH. Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019.

3. Sartorius N et al. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):131-44.
 

Dr. Rosenbaum is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in private practice in New York. She is an assistant clinical professor at New York University Langone Medical Center and on the faculty at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Hatters Friedman serves as the Phillip Resnick Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. She is also editor of Family Murder: Pathologies of Love and Hate (Washington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2019), which was written by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Psychiatry & Law and was awarded the 2020 Manfred Gutmacher Award by the American Psychiatric Association.

The novel lysine-specific demethylase 1 inhibitor vafidemstat (ORY-2001, Oryzon Genomics) is effective for treating agitation and aggression across a number of psychiatric disorders, new research suggests.

The REIMAGINE trial included 30 patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, or borderline personality disorder (BPD). Results showed significant improvements after 8 weeks in general functioning and agitation-aggression scores for all three disorders.

The study “supports vafidemstat as an emerging therapeutic option to treat aggression-agitation, as well as the nonaggression features of psychiatric diseases with high unmet medical need,” lead researcher Roger Bullock, MD, Oryzon Genomics, Corneliá De Llobregat, Spain, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is the first clinical demonstration of an epigenetic mode of action in psychiatry to date,” Bullock added.

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

“The study results must be viewed with caution, given the inherent limitations of an open-label trial, small sample size, and weak rationale for the sample selection,” said Nathan Kolla, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not involved with the research.

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2020 Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Little evidence available

“Epigenetic mechanisms have been proposed in many psychiatric conditions, but so far, little clinical evidence is available,” Bullock said during his presentation.

In preclinical models, vafidemstat has been associated with a reduction in aggressive behavior “and the normal response to stress of immediate early genes in the prefrontal cortex” via the modification of gene transcription, noted Bullock.

“This new approach makes it a good candidate to look at aggression in multiple psychiatric and CNS conditions,” he added.

REIMAGINE was a phase 2a open-label trial that included 30 patients (53% women; mean age, 33.5 years; 87% White) with psychiatric disorders who had significant or persistent agitation or aggression that was disruptive of the patients› daily life.

Among the participants, 12 had BPD, 11 had ADHD, and seven had ASD. All were treated with vafidemstat 1.2 mg for 8 weeks.

In all, 23 patients completed all 8 weeks of treatment, including nine patients with BPD, eight with ADHD, and six with ASD.

Results showed that the study drug was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported and no patients withdrawing because of safety-related events.

The most common adverse events were headache (20%) and insomnia (10%), which resolved without intervention or treatment modification.
 

Significantly improved scores

Across the whole cohort, the drug was associated with significant reductions in scores over baseline on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scales. There were also significant improvements for Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) total scores and agitation-aggression scores (P < .001 for comparisons).

Similar results were observed with respect to individual diagnoses, albeit at varying degrees of significance for each scale.

Patients with BPD experienced significant reductions in scores on the Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist (BPDCL) (P < .01). Patients with ADHD experienced reductions on the ADHD Rating Scale (P < .05).

Patients with BPD also experienced reductions in suicidal ideation, as measured with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (P < .01). That is “the only cohort where this trait is relevant,” the researchers note.

In addition, significant correlations were shown between NPI total scores and scores on the BPDCL after treatment with vafidemstat (P = .015), as well as between NPI agitation-aggression scores and both CGI-I (P = .008) and CGI-S scores (P = .0001).

“This convergence of signals in scales of different nature and scope support the pharmacological role of vafidemstat in controlling aggression-agitation in different psychiatric conditions,” the investigators note.

Bullock added that further randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials “to confirm vafidemstat’s potential to treat aggression-agitation in psychiatric disorders are now planned.”

First up will be PORTICO, which is planned to start over the coming months in Spain and will include patients with BPD.
 

Several limitations

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kolla, who is also a researcher at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, noted that REIMAGINE was originally designed to test vafidemstat for the treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“It seems peculiar that the study investigators would choose to examine three additional psychiatric disorders that bear little resemblance to AD in terms of phenomenology. Additionally, the etiological underpinnings of the three disorders likely differ markedly from AD,” said Kolla, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, the “very small” sample size in each group makes it difficult to interpret the investigators’ conclusions, he noted.

There are also “many more sophisticated scales” to assess agitation and aggression than what were used in the study, he added.

Kolla also questioned the notion that a drug such as vafidemstat satisfies an unmet clinical need for the treatment of aggression and agitation.

Trials that “purport to reduce aggression in these populations often provide some level of global improvement in functioning that may appear as if they directly treat agitation or aggression,” he said. “However, no drug has ever been developed that directly reduces aggression and agitation.”

That means that, for now, there is insufficient evidence to “conclude that vafidemstat overcomes the unmet medical need of treating aggression/agitation,” he said.

For Kolla, the concept of a psychiatric drug that works by effecting epigenetic changes to the genome is also questionable, although such mechanisms may “play a role in the salubrious effects of certain mood stabilizers or antipsychotics for which better-defined mechanisms of action have been established.”

The study was funded by Oryzon Genomics. Bullock and the other investigators are employees of Oryzon Genomics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel lysine-specific demethylase 1 inhibitor vafidemstat (ORY-2001, Oryzon Genomics) is effective for treating agitation and aggression across a number of psychiatric disorders, new research suggests.

The REIMAGINE trial included 30 patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, or borderline personality disorder (BPD). Results showed significant improvements after 8 weeks in general functioning and agitation-aggression scores for all three disorders.

The study “supports vafidemstat as an emerging therapeutic option to treat aggression-agitation, as well as the nonaggression features of psychiatric diseases with high unmet medical need,” lead researcher Roger Bullock, MD, Oryzon Genomics, Corneliá De Llobregat, Spain, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is the first clinical demonstration of an epigenetic mode of action in psychiatry to date,” Bullock added.

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

“The study results must be viewed with caution, given the inherent limitations of an open-label trial, small sample size, and weak rationale for the sample selection,” said Nathan Kolla, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not involved with the research.

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2020 Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Little evidence available

“Epigenetic mechanisms have been proposed in many psychiatric conditions, but so far, little clinical evidence is available,” Bullock said during his presentation.

In preclinical models, vafidemstat has been associated with a reduction in aggressive behavior “and the normal response to stress of immediate early genes in the prefrontal cortex” via the modification of gene transcription, noted Bullock.

“This new approach makes it a good candidate to look at aggression in multiple psychiatric and CNS conditions,” he added.

REIMAGINE was a phase 2a open-label trial that included 30 patients (53% women; mean age, 33.5 years; 87% White) with psychiatric disorders who had significant or persistent agitation or aggression that was disruptive of the patients› daily life.

Among the participants, 12 had BPD, 11 had ADHD, and seven had ASD. All were treated with vafidemstat 1.2 mg for 8 weeks.

In all, 23 patients completed all 8 weeks of treatment, including nine patients with BPD, eight with ADHD, and six with ASD.

Results showed that the study drug was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported and no patients withdrawing because of safety-related events.

The most common adverse events were headache (20%) and insomnia (10%), which resolved without intervention or treatment modification.
 

Significantly improved scores

Across the whole cohort, the drug was associated with significant reductions in scores over baseline on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scales. There were also significant improvements for Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) total scores and agitation-aggression scores (P < .001 for comparisons).

Similar results were observed with respect to individual diagnoses, albeit at varying degrees of significance for each scale.

Patients with BPD experienced significant reductions in scores on the Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist (BPDCL) (P < .01). Patients with ADHD experienced reductions on the ADHD Rating Scale (P < .05).

Patients with BPD also experienced reductions in suicidal ideation, as measured with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (P < .01). That is “the only cohort where this trait is relevant,” the researchers note.

In addition, significant correlations were shown between NPI total scores and scores on the BPDCL after treatment with vafidemstat (P = .015), as well as between NPI agitation-aggression scores and both CGI-I (P = .008) and CGI-S scores (P = .0001).

“This convergence of signals in scales of different nature and scope support the pharmacological role of vafidemstat in controlling aggression-agitation in different psychiatric conditions,” the investigators note.

Bullock added that further randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials “to confirm vafidemstat’s potential to treat aggression-agitation in psychiatric disorders are now planned.”

First up will be PORTICO, which is planned to start over the coming months in Spain and will include patients with BPD.
 

Several limitations

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kolla, who is also a researcher at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, noted that REIMAGINE was originally designed to test vafidemstat for the treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“It seems peculiar that the study investigators would choose to examine three additional psychiatric disorders that bear little resemblance to AD in terms of phenomenology. Additionally, the etiological underpinnings of the three disorders likely differ markedly from AD,” said Kolla, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, the “very small” sample size in each group makes it difficult to interpret the investigators’ conclusions, he noted.

There are also “many more sophisticated scales” to assess agitation and aggression than what were used in the study, he added.

Kolla also questioned the notion that a drug such as vafidemstat satisfies an unmet clinical need for the treatment of aggression and agitation.

Trials that “purport to reduce aggression in these populations often provide some level of global improvement in functioning that may appear as if they directly treat agitation or aggression,” he said. “However, no drug has ever been developed that directly reduces aggression and agitation.”

That means that, for now, there is insufficient evidence to “conclude that vafidemstat overcomes the unmet medical need of treating aggression/agitation,” he said.

For Kolla, the concept of a psychiatric drug that works by effecting epigenetic changes to the genome is also questionable, although such mechanisms may “play a role in the salubrious effects of certain mood stabilizers or antipsychotics for which better-defined mechanisms of action have been established.”

The study was funded by Oryzon Genomics. Bullock and the other investigators are employees of Oryzon Genomics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The novel lysine-specific demethylase 1 inhibitor vafidemstat (ORY-2001, Oryzon Genomics) is effective for treating agitation and aggression across a number of psychiatric disorders, new research suggests.

The REIMAGINE trial included 30 patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD, or borderline personality disorder (BPD). Results showed significant improvements after 8 weeks in general functioning and agitation-aggression scores for all three disorders.

The study “supports vafidemstat as an emerging therapeutic option to treat aggression-agitation, as well as the nonaggression features of psychiatric diseases with high unmet medical need,” lead researcher Roger Bullock, MD, Oryzon Genomics, Corneliá De Llobregat, Spain, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is the first clinical demonstration of an epigenetic mode of action in psychiatry to date,” Bullock added.

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

“The study results must be viewed with caution, given the inherent limitations of an open-label trial, small sample size, and weak rationale for the sample selection,” said Nathan Kolla, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not involved with the research.

The findings were presented at the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2020 Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Little evidence available

“Epigenetic mechanisms have been proposed in many psychiatric conditions, but so far, little clinical evidence is available,” Bullock said during his presentation.

In preclinical models, vafidemstat has been associated with a reduction in aggressive behavior “and the normal response to stress of immediate early genes in the prefrontal cortex” via the modification of gene transcription, noted Bullock.

“This new approach makes it a good candidate to look at aggression in multiple psychiatric and CNS conditions,” he added.

REIMAGINE was a phase 2a open-label trial that included 30 patients (53% women; mean age, 33.5 years; 87% White) with psychiatric disorders who had significant or persistent agitation or aggression that was disruptive of the patients› daily life.

Among the participants, 12 had BPD, 11 had ADHD, and seven had ASD. All were treated with vafidemstat 1.2 mg for 8 weeks.

In all, 23 patients completed all 8 weeks of treatment, including nine patients with BPD, eight with ADHD, and six with ASD.

Results showed that the study drug was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported and no patients withdrawing because of safety-related events.

The most common adverse events were headache (20%) and insomnia (10%), which resolved without intervention or treatment modification.
 

Significantly improved scores

Across the whole cohort, the drug was associated with significant reductions in scores over baseline on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scales. There were also significant improvements for Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) total scores and agitation-aggression scores (P < .001 for comparisons).

Similar results were observed with respect to individual diagnoses, albeit at varying degrees of significance for each scale.

Patients with BPD experienced significant reductions in scores on the Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist (BPDCL) (P < .01). Patients with ADHD experienced reductions on the ADHD Rating Scale (P < .05).

Patients with BPD also experienced reductions in suicidal ideation, as measured with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (P < .01). That is “the only cohort where this trait is relevant,” the researchers note.

In addition, significant correlations were shown between NPI total scores and scores on the BPDCL after treatment with vafidemstat (P = .015), as well as between NPI agitation-aggression scores and both CGI-I (P = .008) and CGI-S scores (P = .0001).

“This convergence of signals in scales of different nature and scope support the pharmacological role of vafidemstat in controlling aggression-agitation in different psychiatric conditions,” the investigators note.

Bullock added that further randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials “to confirm vafidemstat’s potential to treat aggression-agitation in psychiatric disorders are now planned.”

First up will be PORTICO, which is planned to start over the coming months in Spain and will include patients with BPD.
 

Several limitations

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kolla, who is also a researcher at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, noted that REIMAGINE was originally designed to test vafidemstat for the treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

“It seems peculiar that the study investigators would choose to examine three additional psychiatric disorders that bear little resemblance to AD in terms of phenomenology. Additionally, the etiological underpinnings of the three disorders likely differ markedly from AD,” said Kolla, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, the “very small” sample size in each group makes it difficult to interpret the investigators’ conclusions, he noted.

There are also “many more sophisticated scales” to assess agitation and aggression than what were used in the study, he added.

Kolla also questioned the notion that a drug such as vafidemstat satisfies an unmet clinical need for the treatment of aggression and agitation.

Trials that “purport to reduce aggression in these populations often provide some level of global improvement in functioning that may appear as if they directly treat agitation or aggression,” he said. “However, no drug has ever been developed that directly reduces aggression and agitation.”

That means that, for now, there is insufficient evidence to “conclude that vafidemstat overcomes the unmet medical need of treating aggression/agitation,” he said.

For Kolla, the concept of a psychiatric drug that works by effecting epigenetic changes to the genome is also questionable, although such mechanisms may “play a role in the salubrious effects of certain mood stabilizers or antipsychotics for which better-defined mechanisms of action have been established.”

The study was funded by Oryzon Genomics. Bullock and the other investigators are employees of Oryzon Genomics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibody levels in patients with mild COVID-19, the level of disease most people have, appear to drop by half within 36 days, new research suggests. The research was conducted by F. Javier Ibarrondo, PhD, and colleagues and was published online on July 21 in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. Ibarrondo is associate researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. (The original letter incorrectly calculated the half-life at 73 days.)

Coauthor Otto Yang, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at UCLA, told Medscape Medical News that the rapidity in the antibody drop at 5 weeks “is striking compared to other infections.”

The phenomenon has been suspected and has been observed before but had not been quantified.

“Our paper is the first to put firm numbers on the dropping of antibodies after early infection,” he said.

The researchers evaluated 34 people (average age, 43 years) who had recovered from mild COVID-19 and had referred themselves to UCLA for observational research.
 

Previous report also found a quick fade

As Medscape Medical News reported, a previous study from China that was published in Nature Medicine also found that the antibodies fade quickly.

Interpreting the meaning of the current research comes with a few caveats, Dr. Yang said.

“One is that we don’t know for sure that antibodies are what protect people from getting infected,” he said. Although it’s a reasonable assumption, he said, that’s not always the case.

Another caveat is that even if antibodies do protect, the tests being used to measure them – including the test that was used in this study – may not measure them the right way, and it is not yet known how many antibodies are needed for protection, he explained.

The UCLA researchers used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor–binding domain immunoglobulin G concentrations.
 

“No reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically”

The study provides further proof that “[t]here’s no reason for anybody to be getting an antibody test medically right now,” Dr. Yang said.

Additionally, “FDA-approved tests are not approved for quantitative measures, only qualitative,” he continued. He noted that the findings may have implications with respect to herd immunity.

“Herd immunity depends on a lot of people having immunity to the infection all at the same time. If infection is followed by only brief protection from infection, the natural infection is not going to reach herd immunity,” he explained.

Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., pointed out that antibodies “are just part of the story.”

“When we make an immune response to any germ,” he said, “we not only make an immune response for the time being but for the future. The next time we’re exposed, we can call into action B cells and T cells who have been there and done that.”

So even though the antibodies fade over time, other arms of the immune system are being trained for future action, he said.

Herd immunity does not require that populations have a huge level of antibodies that remains forever, he explained.

“It requires that in general, we’re not going to get infected as easily, and we’re not going to have disease as easily, and we’re not going to transmit the virus for as long,” he said.

Dr. Creech said he and others researching COVID-19 find that studies that show that antibodies fade quickly provide more proof “that this coronavirus is going to be here to stay unless we can take care of it through very effective treatments to take it from potentially fatal disease to one that is nothing more than a cold” or until a vaccine is developed.

He noted there are four other coronaviruses in widespread circulation every year that “amount to about 25% of the common cold.”

This study may help narrow the window as to when convalescent plasma – plasma that is taken from people who have recovered from COVID-19 and that is used to help people who are acutely ill with the disease – will be most effective, Dr. Creech explained. He said the results suggest that it is important that plasma be collected within the first couple of months after recovery so as to capture the most antibodies.

This study is important as another snapshot “so we understand the differences between severe and mild disease, so we can study it over time, so we have all the tools we need as we start these pivotal vaccine studies to make sure we’re making the right immune response for the right duration of time so we can put an end to this pandemic,” Dr. Creech concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the James B. Pendleton Charitable Trust, and the McCarthy Family Foundation. A coauthor reports receiving grants from Gilead outside the submitted work. Dr. Creech has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

A study that observed oral petechial lesions in a small number of COVID-19 patients with skin rash fortifies growing evidence that the virus has dermatologic manifestations. Larger studies should explore and confirm this association, the study’s authors and other experts suggested.

Dermatologists are already aware of the connection between enanthem and viral etiology. “As seen with other viral infections, we wondered if COVID-19 could produce enanthem in addition to skin rash exanthem,” one of the study author’s, Juan Jiménez-Cauhe, MD, a dermatologist with Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, said in an interview. He and his colleagues summarized their findings in a research letter in JAMA Dermatology.

They examined the oral cavity of 21 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary care hospital who also had a skin rash from March 30 to April 8. They classified enanthems into four categories: petechial, macular, macular with petechiae, or erythematovesicular. Six of the patients presented with oral lesions, all of them located in the palate; in one patient, the enanthem was macular, it was petechial in two patients and was macular with petechiae in three patients. The six patients ranged between the ages of 40 and 69 years; four were women.

Petechial or vesicular patterns are often associated with viral infections. In this particular study, the investigators did not observe vesicular lesions.

On average, mucocutaneous lesions appeared about 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. “Interestingly, this latency was shorter in patients with petechial enanthem, compared with those with a macular lesion with petechiae appearance,” the authors wrote.

This shorter time might suggest an association for SARS-CoV-2, said Dr. Jiménez-Cauhe. Strong cough may have also caused petechial lesions on the palate, but it’s unlikely, as they appeared close in time to COVID-19 symptoms. It’s also unlikely that any drugs caused the lesions, as drug rashes can take 2-3 weeks to appear.

This fits in line with other evidence of broader skin manifestations appearing at the same time or after COVID-19, Esther Freeman, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Freeman, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, is the principal investigator of the COVID-19 Dermatology Registry, a collaboration of the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies.

The study’s small cohort made it difficult to establish a solid association between the oral lesions and SARS-CoV-2. “However, the presence of enanthem in a patient with a skin rash is a useful finding that suggests a viral etiology rather than a drug reaction. This is particularly useful in COVID-19 patients, who were receiving many drugs as part of the treatment,” Dr. Jimenez-Cauhe said. Future studies should assess whether the presence of enanthem and exanthem lead physicians to consider SARS-CoV-2 as possible agents, ruling out infection with a blood or nasopharyngeal test.

This study adds to the growing body of knowledge on cutaneous and mucocutaneous findings associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, Jules Lipoff, MD, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “One challenge in evaluating these findings is that these findings are nonspecific, and medication reactions can often cause similar rashes, such as morbilliform eruptions that can be associated with both viruses and medications.”

Enanthems, as the study authors noted, are more specific to viral infections and are less commonly associated with medication reactions. “So, even though this is a small case series with significant limitations, it does add more evidence that COVID-19 is directly responsible for findings in the skin and mucous membranes,” said Dr. Lipoff.

Dr. Freeman noted that the study may also encourage clinicians to look in a patient’s mouth when assessing for SARS-CoV-2. Additional research should examine these data in a larger population.

Several studies by Dr. Freeman, Dr. Lipoff, and others strongly suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a spectrum of associated dermatologic manifestations. One evaluated perniolike skin lesions (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Aug; 83[2]:486-92). The other was a case series from the COVID-19 registry that examined 716 cases of new-onset dermatologic symptoms in patients from 31 countries with confirmed/suspected SARS-CoV-2 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 2;S0190-9622[20]32126-5.).

The authors of the report had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Jul 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2550.

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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

In early April, Maura Quinlan, MD, was working nights on the labor and delivery unit at Northwestern Medicine Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago. At the time, hospital policy was to test only patients with known COVID-19 symptoms for SARS-CoV-2. Women in labor wore N95 masks, but only while pushing – and practitioners didn’t always don proper protection in time.

Babies came and families rejoiced. But Dr. Quinlan looks back on those weeks with a degree of horror. “We were laboring a bunch of patients that probably had COVID,” she said, and they were doing so without proper protection.

She’s probably right. According to one study in the New England Journal of Medicine, 13.7% of 211 women who came into the labor and delivery unit at one New York City hospital between March 22 and April 2 were asymptomatic but infected, potentially putting staff and doctors at risk.

Dr. Quinlan already knew she and her fellow ob.gyns. had been walking a thin line and, upon seeing that research, her heart sank. In the middle of a pandemic, they had been racing to keep up with the reality of delivering babies. But despite their efforts to protect both practitioners and patients, some aspects slipped through the cracks. Today, every laboring patient admitted to Northwestern is now tested for the novel coronavirus.

Across the country, hospital labor and delivery wards have been working to find a careful and informed balance among multiple competing interests: the safety of their health care workers, the health of tiny and vulnerable new humans, and the stability of a birthing mother. Each hospital has been making the best decisions it can based on available data. The result is a patchwork of policies, but all of them center around rapid testing and appropriate protection.
 

Shifting recommendations

One case study of women in a New York City hospital during the height of the city’s surge found that, of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, two were asymptomatic upon admission to the obstetrical service, and these same two patients ultimately required unplanned ICU admission. The women’s care prior to their positive diagnosis had exposed multiple health care workers, all of whom lacked appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), the study authors wrote. “Further, five of seven confirmed COVID-19–positive women were afebrile on initial screen, and four did not first report a cough. In some locations where testing availability remains limited, the minimal symptoms reported for some of these cases might have been insufficient to prompt COVID-19 testing.”

As studies like this pour in, societies continue to update their recommendations accordingly. The latest guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists came on July 1. The group suggests testing all labor and delivery patients, particularly in high-prevalence areas. If tests are in short supply, it recommends prioritizing testing pregnant women with suspected COVID-19 and those who develop symptoms during admission.

At Northwestern, the hospital requests patients stay home and quarantine for the weeks leading up to their delivery date. Then, they rapidly test every patient who comes in for delivery and aim to have results available within a few hours.

The hospital’s 30-room labor and delivery wing remains reserved for patients who test negative. Those with positive COVID-19 results are sent to a 6-bed COVID labor and delivery unit elsewhere in the hospital. “We were lucky we had the space to do that, because smaller community hospitals wouldn’t have a separate unused unit where they could put these women,” Dr. Quinlan said.

In the COVID unit, women deliver without a support person – no partner, doula, or family member can join. Doctors and nurses wear full PPE and work only in that ward. And because some research shows that pregnant women who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic may develop symptoms quickly after starting labor with no measurable illness, Dr. Quinlan must decide on a case-by-case basis what to do, if anything at all.

Delaying an induction could allow the infection to resolve or it could result in her patient moving from presymptomatic disease to full-blown pneumonia. Accelerating labor could bring on symptoms or it could allow a mother to deliver safely and get out of the hospital as quickly as possible. “There is an advantage to having the baby now if you feel okay – even if it’s alone – and getting home,” Dr. Quinlan said.

The hospital also tests the partners of women who are COVID-19 positive. Those with negative results can take the newborn home and try to maintain distance until the mother is no longer symptomatic.

In different parts of the country, hospitals have developed different approaches. Southern California is experiencing its own surge, but at the Ronald Reagan University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center there still haven’t been enough COVID-19 patients to warrant a separate labor and delivery unit.

At UCLA, staff swab patients when they enter the labor and delivery ward — those who test positive have specific room designations. For both COVID-19–positive patients and women who progress faster than test results can be returned, the goals are the same, said Rashmi Rao, MD, an ob.gyn. at UCLA: Deliver in the safest way possible for both mother and baby.

All women, positive or negative, must wear masks during labor – as much as they can tolerate, at least. For patients who are only mildly ill or asymptomatic, the only difference is that everyone wears protective gear. But if a patient’s oxygen levels dip, or her baby is in distress, the team moves more quickly to a cesarean delivery than they’d do with a healthy patient.

Just as hospital policies have been evolving, rules for visitors have been constantly changing too. Initially, UCLA allowed a support person to be present during delivery but had to leave immediately following. Now, each new mother is allowed one visitor for the duration of their stay. And the hospital suggests that patients who are COVID-19 positive recover in separate rooms from their babies and encourages them to maintain distance from their infants, except when breastfeeding.

“We respect and understand that this is a joyous occasion and we’re trying to keep families together as much as possible,” Dr. Rao said.
 

Care conundrums

How hospitals protect their smallest charges keeps changing too. Reports have been circulating about newborns being taken away from COVID-19-positive mothers, especially in marginalized communities. The stories have led many to worry they’d be forcibly separated from their babies. Most hospitals, however, leave it up to the woman and her doctors to decide how much separation is needed. “After delivery, it depends on how someone is feeling,” Dr. Rao said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that mothers who are COVID-19–positive pump breast milk and have a healthy caregiver use that milk, or formula, to bottle-feed the baby, with the new mother remaining 6 feet away from the child as much as she can. If that’s not possible, she should wear gloves and a mask while breastfeeding until she has been naturally afebrile for 72 hours and at least 1 week removed from the first appearance of her symptoms.

“It’s tragically hard,” said Dr. Quinlan, to keep a COVID-19–positive mother even 6 feet away from her newborn baby. “If a mother declines separation, we ask the acting pediatric team to discuss the theoretical risks and paucity of data.”

Until recently, research indicated that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t being transmitted through the uterus from mothers to their babies. And despite a recent case study reporting transplacental transmission between a mother and her fetus in France, researchers still say that the risk of transference is low. To ensure newborn risk remains as low as possible, UCLA’s policy is to swab the baby when he/she is 24 hours old and keep watch for signs of infection: increased lethargy, difficulty waking, or gastrointestinal symptoms like vomiting.

Transmission via breast milk has also, to date, proven relatively unlikely. One study in The Lancet detected the novel coronavirus in breast milk, although it’s not clear that the virus can be passed on in the fluid, says Christina Chambers, PhD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Chambers is studying breast milk to see if the virus or antibodies to it are present. She is also investigating how infection with SARS-CoV-2 impacts women at different times in pregnancy, something that’s still an open question.

“[In] pregnant women with a deteriorating infection, the decisions are the same you would make with any delivery: Save the mom and save the baby,” Dr. Chambers said. “Beyond that, I am encouraged to see that pregnant women are prioritized to being tested,” something that will help researchers understand prevalence of disease in order to better understand whether some symptoms are more dangerous than others.

The situation is evolving so quickly that hospitals and providers are simply trying to stay abreast of the flood of new research. In the absence of definitive answers, they are using the information available and adjusting on the fly. “We are cautiously waiting for more data,” said Dr. Rao. “With the information we have we are doing the best we can to keep our patients safe. And we’re just going to keep at it.”

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

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

As more and more reopened medical practices ramp up toward normal activity, the safety of patients and health care workers alike remains paramount. As always, the responsibility for enforcing all the new safety guidelines ultimately rests with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Most of the modified guidelines are already familiar: wear masks (and other personal protective equipment as necessary); maintain social distancing; have hand cleaner, soap, and water readily available; and sanitize between patient examinations.

It is also important to remember that COVID-19 is now a reportable disease; check with your local health authorities as to where and how. Also remember that, if you decide to screen employees and/or patients for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19, those data are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential.

Now might be a good time to confirm that you remain in compliance with both the new and old regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings – which often is not the case – it is always a good idea to occasionally conduct a comprehensive review, which could save you a lot in fines.

So get your OSHA logs out, and walk through your office. Start by making sure you have an official OSHA poster, which enumerates employee rights and explains how to file complaints. Every office must have one posted in plain site, and is what an OSHA inspector will look for first. They are available for free at OSHA’s website or you can order one by calling 800-321-OSHA.

How long have you had your written exposure control plan for blood-borne pathogens? This plan should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, as well as your implementation of universal precautions. It should be updated annually to reflect changes in technology – and new threats, such as COVID-19.

Review your list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are classified as “hazardous.” Also remember that you’re probably using new disinfectants, which may need to be added to your list. For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

It is not necessary to adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using and which ones you decide not to use – and why. For example, if you and your employees decide against buying a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it is worth, you still should document how you made that decision and why you believe that your current protocol is as good or better.

All at-risk employees should be provided with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. And after any exposure to dangerous pathogens – which now include COVID-19 – you also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up.

Another important consideration in your review: Electrical devices and their power sources in the office. All electrically powered equipment – medical or clerical – must operate safely and should all be examined. It is particularly important to check how wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it and that circuit breakers are present and functioning.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Medical and dental offices are not required to keep an injury and illness log under federal OSHA regulations, which other businesses must. However, your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law so you should check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is important to take OSHA regulations seriously because failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars.

To be certain you are complying with all the rules, you can call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. This is the easiest and cheapest way because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they discover.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].