A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

Linked-color imaging (LCI) significantly increases the detection of adenomas in screening colonoscopies compared to white-light imaging (WLI) and blue-laser imaging (BLI)–bright, according to data from 205 adults who underwent screening colonoscopies.

LCI is a relatively new image-enhancement method designed to better identify adenomatous lesions by increasing the contrast of the mucosal surface, wrote Carlos E.O. dos Santos, MD, of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. With LCI, the lesions are more vascularized, and thus become reddish due to color contrast of hemoglobin present in capillary vessels, whereas the surrounding mucosa becomes whitish. Until this new study, the potential of LCI to detect adenomas compared with other imaging had not been evaluated.

The researchers randomized 205 patients with a total of 296 colorectal lesions to WLI, BLI-bright, or LCI; 70 patients were examined by WLI, 66 by BLI-bright, and 69 by LCI. The average age of the patients was 59 years, and 52% were women. The primary outcome measures were adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per patient, and withdrawal time.

A total of 251 adenomas were detected, with an overall ADR of 62%. The total number of adenomas detected by each method were 112 by LCI, 71 by WLI, and 68 by BLI-bright.

The ADR was significantly higher for patients in the LCI group compared with those in the WLI group (71% vs. 52.9%, P = .04). ADR for LCI was greater than the ADR for BLI-bright, but the difference was not significant (71% vs. 62.1%, P = .28). No significant differences in ADR were noted between the WLI and BLI-bright groups.

The mean number of adenomas identified per patient was 1.17 overall, but significantly higher in the LCI group compared to the WLI and BLI-bright groups (1.62, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively, P = .02). Mean withdrawal times were not significantly different among the three groups and ranged from approximately 10 to 11 minutes. An analysis of secondary outcomes showed no differences among the groups in terms of size and morphology of the adenomas, or in the detection of sessile serrated adenomas or polyps.

The researchers noted that the study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center with a high level of experience in image-enhanced endoscopy and by the relatively small sample size.

Nevertheless, concluded the researchers, “It is evident that better visibility of the mucosa is a key factor for the detection of neoplastic lesions,” and the results support the potential of LCI given the demonstrated superiority of LCI over WLI for colorectal adenoma detection and the mean number of adenomas detected per patient.

The researchers said that further single and multicenter randomized studies are needed to validate the results and to confirm whether one image-enhancement system is superior to the other for increasing the ADR.
 

Door is open for better detection tools

In an interview, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said that colonoscopy is considered the best method for colorectal cancer screening and prevention, but is associated with a certain risk of missing adenomas, so new methods and technologies to improve detection rate are needed. “Linked-color imaging provides an increased contrast of the mucosal surface and enhances the findings of adenomatous lesions in comparison to white-light endoscopy and has been shown to be effective in detecting adenomas, so the findings of the present study are not surprising,” said Dr. Sakuraba.

LCI provides clearer and brighter images by enhancing the differences in color contrast, and therefore does not cause the impaired visibility that can occur with narrow band imaging or BLI images, Dr. Sakuraba said. However, he noted, not all endoscopy centers carry the scopes equipped with LCI, which is a barrier to widespread use.

Dr. Sakuraba said that multicenter studies need to be undertaken to confirm the generalizability of the results of the present study.

“There is now convincing evidence that increasing adenoma detection rate is associated with fewer missed cancers and lower mortality from colorectal cancer,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was also not involved with the study. “As such, utilizing tools that enhance ADR may improve our ability to prevent colorectal cancer. ... Understanding the relative benefits and drawbacks of available tools and technologies in the market can help practicing gastroenterologists decide where to invest their time and resources to improve care.”

Dr. Gellad said he was not surprised by the enhanced detection using LCI, as the study is not the first to evaluate this technology. “However, I was surprised by how high the ADR was in the screening population (62%),” said Dr. Gellad, observing that this exceeds benchmarks set by the society. “We don’t have a full understanding of the demographic characteristics of this screening population. ... Nonetheless, I think this paper adds to accumulating data that current benchmarks may be too low.”

Dr. Gellad said he didn’t think the findings of the study are strong enough to change practice, but the results are a “valuable contribution to the literature and will empower future larger studies as well as meta-analyses.” He called for larger studies in nonspecialized centers to relate the findings from this small study to general practice.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research relationships with Fuji, the manufacturer of the imaging equipment used in the study. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the editorial board of GI & Hepatology News.

Linked-color imaging (LCI) significantly increases the detection of adenomas in screening colonoscopies compared to white-light imaging (WLI) and blue-laser imaging (BLI)–bright, according to data from 205 adults who underwent screening colonoscopies.

LCI is a relatively new image-enhancement method designed to better identify adenomatous lesions by increasing the contrast of the mucosal surface, wrote Carlos E.O. dos Santos, MD, of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. With LCI, the lesions are more vascularized, and thus become reddish due to color contrast of hemoglobin present in capillary vessels, whereas the surrounding mucosa becomes whitish. Until this new study, the potential of LCI to detect adenomas compared with other imaging had not been evaluated.

The researchers randomized 205 patients with a total of 296 colorectal lesions to WLI, BLI-bright, or LCI; 70 patients were examined by WLI, 66 by BLI-bright, and 69 by LCI. The average age of the patients was 59 years, and 52% were women. The primary outcome measures were adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per patient, and withdrawal time.

A total of 251 adenomas were detected, with an overall ADR of 62%. The total number of adenomas detected by each method were 112 by LCI, 71 by WLI, and 68 by BLI-bright.

The ADR was significantly higher for patients in the LCI group compared with those in the WLI group (71% vs. 52.9%, P = .04). ADR for LCI was greater than the ADR for BLI-bright, but the difference was not significant (71% vs. 62.1%, P = .28). No significant differences in ADR were noted between the WLI and BLI-bright groups.

The mean number of adenomas identified per patient was 1.17 overall, but significantly higher in the LCI group compared to the WLI and BLI-bright groups (1.62, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively, P = .02). Mean withdrawal times were not significantly different among the three groups and ranged from approximately 10 to 11 minutes. An analysis of secondary outcomes showed no differences among the groups in terms of size and morphology of the adenomas, or in the detection of sessile serrated adenomas or polyps.

The researchers noted that the study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center with a high level of experience in image-enhanced endoscopy and by the relatively small sample size.

Nevertheless, concluded the researchers, “It is evident that better visibility of the mucosa is a key factor for the detection of neoplastic lesions,” and the results support the potential of LCI given the demonstrated superiority of LCI over WLI for colorectal adenoma detection and the mean number of adenomas detected per patient.

The researchers said that further single and multicenter randomized studies are needed to validate the results and to confirm whether one image-enhancement system is superior to the other for increasing the ADR.
 

Door is open for better detection tools

In an interview, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said that colonoscopy is considered the best method for colorectal cancer screening and prevention, but is associated with a certain risk of missing adenomas, so new methods and technologies to improve detection rate are needed. “Linked-color imaging provides an increased contrast of the mucosal surface and enhances the findings of adenomatous lesions in comparison to white-light endoscopy and has been shown to be effective in detecting adenomas, so the findings of the present study are not surprising,” said Dr. Sakuraba.

LCI provides clearer and brighter images by enhancing the differences in color contrast, and therefore does not cause the impaired visibility that can occur with narrow band imaging or BLI images, Dr. Sakuraba said. However, he noted, not all endoscopy centers carry the scopes equipped with LCI, which is a barrier to widespread use.

Dr. Sakuraba said that multicenter studies need to be undertaken to confirm the generalizability of the results of the present study.

“There is now convincing evidence that increasing adenoma detection rate is associated with fewer missed cancers and lower mortality from colorectal cancer,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was also not involved with the study. “As such, utilizing tools that enhance ADR may improve our ability to prevent colorectal cancer. ... Understanding the relative benefits and drawbacks of available tools and technologies in the market can help practicing gastroenterologists decide where to invest their time and resources to improve care.”

Dr. Gellad said he was not surprised by the enhanced detection using LCI, as the study is not the first to evaluate this technology. “However, I was surprised by how high the ADR was in the screening population (62%),” said Dr. Gellad, observing that this exceeds benchmarks set by the society. “We don’t have a full understanding of the demographic characteristics of this screening population. ... Nonetheless, I think this paper adds to accumulating data that current benchmarks may be too low.”

Dr. Gellad said he didn’t think the findings of the study are strong enough to change practice, but the results are a “valuable contribution to the literature and will empower future larger studies as well as meta-analyses.” He called for larger studies in nonspecialized centers to relate the findings from this small study to general practice.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research relationships with Fuji, the manufacturer of the imaging equipment used in the study. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the editorial board of GI & Hepatology News.

Linked-color imaging (LCI) significantly increases the detection of adenomas in screening colonoscopies compared to white-light imaging (WLI) and blue-laser imaging (BLI)–bright, according to data from 205 adults who underwent screening colonoscopies.

LCI is a relatively new image-enhancement method designed to better identify adenomatous lesions by increasing the contrast of the mucosal surface, wrote Carlos E.O. dos Santos, MD, of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. With LCI, the lesions are more vascularized, and thus become reddish due to color contrast of hemoglobin present in capillary vessels, whereas the surrounding mucosa becomes whitish. Until this new study, the potential of LCI to detect adenomas compared with other imaging had not been evaluated.

The researchers randomized 205 patients with a total of 296 colorectal lesions to WLI, BLI-bright, or LCI; 70 patients were examined by WLI, 66 by BLI-bright, and 69 by LCI. The average age of the patients was 59 years, and 52% were women. The primary outcome measures were adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per patient, and withdrawal time.

A total of 251 adenomas were detected, with an overall ADR of 62%. The total number of adenomas detected by each method were 112 by LCI, 71 by WLI, and 68 by BLI-bright.

The ADR was significantly higher for patients in the LCI group compared with those in the WLI group (71% vs. 52.9%, P = .04). ADR for LCI was greater than the ADR for BLI-bright, but the difference was not significant (71% vs. 62.1%, P = .28). No significant differences in ADR were noted between the WLI and BLI-bright groups.

The mean number of adenomas identified per patient was 1.17 overall, but significantly higher in the LCI group compared to the WLI and BLI-bright groups (1.62, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively, P = .02). Mean withdrawal times were not significantly different among the three groups and ranged from approximately 10 to 11 minutes. An analysis of secondary outcomes showed no differences among the groups in terms of size and morphology of the adenomas, or in the detection of sessile serrated adenomas or polyps.

The researchers noted that the study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single center with a high level of experience in image-enhanced endoscopy and by the relatively small sample size.

Nevertheless, concluded the researchers, “It is evident that better visibility of the mucosa is a key factor for the detection of neoplastic lesions,” and the results support the potential of LCI given the demonstrated superiority of LCI over WLI for colorectal adenoma detection and the mean number of adenomas detected per patient.

The researchers said that further single and multicenter randomized studies are needed to validate the results and to confirm whether one image-enhancement system is superior to the other for increasing the ADR.
 

Door is open for better detection tools

In an interview, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, who was not involved with the study, said that colonoscopy is considered the best method for colorectal cancer screening and prevention, but is associated with a certain risk of missing adenomas, so new methods and technologies to improve detection rate are needed. “Linked-color imaging provides an increased contrast of the mucosal surface and enhances the findings of adenomatous lesions in comparison to white-light endoscopy and has been shown to be effective in detecting adenomas, so the findings of the present study are not surprising,” said Dr. Sakuraba.

LCI provides clearer and brighter images by enhancing the differences in color contrast, and therefore does not cause the impaired visibility that can occur with narrow band imaging or BLI images, Dr. Sakuraba said. However, he noted, not all endoscopy centers carry the scopes equipped with LCI, which is a barrier to widespread use.

Dr. Sakuraba said that multicenter studies need to be undertaken to confirm the generalizability of the results of the present study.

“There is now convincing evidence that increasing adenoma detection rate is associated with fewer missed cancers and lower mortality from colorectal cancer,” said Ziad F. Gellad, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was also not involved with the study. “As such, utilizing tools that enhance ADR may improve our ability to prevent colorectal cancer. ... Understanding the relative benefits and drawbacks of available tools and technologies in the market can help practicing gastroenterologists decide where to invest their time and resources to improve care.”

Dr. Gellad said he was not surprised by the enhanced detection using LCI, as the study is not the first to evaluate this technology. “However, I was surprised by how high the ADR was in the screening population (62%),” said Dr. Gellad, observing that this exceeds benchmarks set by the society. “We don’t have a full understanding of the demographic characteristics of this screening population. ... Nonetheless, I think this paper adds to accumulating data that current benchmarks may be too low.”

Dr. Gellad said he didn’t think the findings of the study are strong enough to change practice, but the results are a “valuable contribution to the literature and will empower future larger studies as well as meta-analyses.” He called for larger studies in nonspecialized centers to relate the findings from this small study to general practice.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research relationships with Fuji, the manufacturer of the imaging equipment used in the study. Dr. Gellad had no financial conflicts to disclose but serves on the editorial board of GI & Hepatology News.

With the Delta variant of COVID-19 still raging in the United States and ICUs in parts of the country filled with patients with the coronavirus, experts are voicing concern about the added risk of a difficult flu season.

Two mathematical models are predicting a big rebound in the number and severity of flu cases in the 2021-22 season after 2020-2021’s flu season failed to show up when public health measures brought in to control COVID-19 seemed to have the added benefit of stopping the flu.

But both analyses, posted to the medRxiv preprint server and not yet peer reviewed by other experts, have come to the same conclusion: The flu could make a comeback this year.

In the worst-case scenario, the United States could see an extra 300,000-400,000 hospitalizations from the flu – almost double the usual number – according to senior study author Mark Roberts, MD, director of the Public Health Dynamics Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. These numbers could be a disaster in areas where hospitals are already filled with COVID-19 patients.

Waning natural immunity in the public because of 2020-2021’s missing flu season could make people, especially young children, more likely to get the virus.

“Usually, a combination of natural immunity and vaccination helps tamp down seasonal influenza,” said Dr. Roberts. “If we don’t have the first part, we’ll have to rely more on the vaccine.”

In a typical year, about half of Americans get the flu shot. The new mathematical models predict that the vaccination rate would need to rise to about 75% to avoid the extra hospitalizations. But even a 10% increase in vaccination rates could reduce hospitalizations by 6%-46%, depending on what strains are dominant.

Usually, the Southern Hemisphere flu season, from February to August, helps show what the Northern Hemisphere can expect over the coming winter. But with strict COVID-19 measures and limits on international travel still in place in countries like Australia and New Zealand and much of South America, it has been another record-low year for flu infections, said Ian Barr, PhD, deputy director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne.

Australia detected only around 500 cases in 2021, compared with about 300,000 in a normal year, and recorded no hospitalizations or deaths from the flu. New Zealand recorded just two cases.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Dr. Barr said.

In Australia, the mild flu season led to fewer people getting their flu shot than usual. The rate fell from around 50% to just 33%, said Dr. Barr. “If that happens in the U.S., the population will be even more vulnerable because there has been almost no flu for more than 12 months,” he said.

Both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barr say it is vital that as many people as possible get vaccinated during the upcoming flu season, especially children who will have almost no natural immunity to the virus.

“The vaccine is our best weapon against the flu, especially for the most at-risk groups,” said Dr. Barr.

Other parts of the world had mixed results. India saw a high number of flu cases, while neighboring Sri Lanka had very few. West Africa also saw quite a high level of circulating virus. Overall, the flu was detected in 45 countries during the Southern Hemisphere season, less than half of what might be expected in a normal year, said Dr. Barr.

Despite the overall low numbers, the WHO saw enough in the data to make two changes to 2022’s Southern Hemisphere vaccine formulation at its meeting on Sept. 24, after changing just one of the strains for the Northern Hemisphere vaccine at its meeting in February.

The CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older get the flu shot, with few exceptions.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

With the Delta variant of COVID-19 still raging in the United States and ICUs in parts of the country filled with patients with the coronavirus, experts are voicing concern about the added risk of a difficult flu season.

Two mathematical models are predicting a big rebound in the number and severity of flu cases in the 2021-22 season after 2020-2021’s flu season failed to show up when public health measures brought in to control COVID-19 seemed to have the added benefit of stopping the flu.

But both analyses, posted to the medRxiv preprint server and not yet peer reviewed by other experts, have come to the same conclusion: The flu could make a comeback this year.

In the worst-case scenario, the United States could see an extra 300,000-400,000 hospitalizations from the flu – almost double the usual number – according to senior study author Mark Roberts, MD, director of the Public Health Dynamics Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. These numbers could be a disaster in areas where hospitals are already filled with COVID-19 patients.

Waning natural immunity in the public because of 2020-2021’s missing flu season could make people, especially young children, more likely to get the virus.

“Usually, a combination of natural immunity and vaccination helps tamp down seasonal influenza,” said Dr. Roberts. “If we don’t have the first part, we’ll have to rely more on the vaccine.”

In a typical year, about half of Americans get the flu shot. The new mathematical models predict that the vaccination rate would need to rise to about 75% to avoid the extra hospitalizations. But even a 10% increase in vaccination rates could reduce hospitalizations by 6%-46%, depending on what strains are dominant.

Usually, the Southern Hemisphere flu season, from February to August, helps show what the Northern Hemisphere can expect over the coming winter. But with strict COVID-19 measures and limits on international travel still in place in countries like Australia and New Zealand and much of South America, it has been another record-low year for flu infections, said Ian Barr, PhD, deputy director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne.

Australia detected only around 500 cases in 2021, compared with about 300,000 in a normal year, and recorded no hospitalizations or deaths from the flu. New Zealand recorded just two cases.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Dr. Barr said.

In Australia, the mild flu season led to fewer people getting their flu shot than usual. The rate fell from around 50% to just 33%, said Dr. Barr. “If that happens in the U.S., the population will be even more vulnerable because there has been almost no flu for more than 12 months,” he said.

Both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barr say it is vital that as many people as possible get vaccinated during the upcoming flu season, especially children who will have almost no natural immunity to the virus.

“The vaccine is our best weapon against the flu, especially for the most at-risk groups,” said Dr. Barr.

Other parts of the world had mixed results. India saw a high number of flu cases, while neighboring Sri Lanka had very few. West Africa also saw quite a high level of circulating virus. Overall, the flu was detected in 45 countries during the Southern Hemisphere season, less than half of what might be expected in a normal year, said Dr. Barr.

Despite the overall low numbers, the WHO saw enough in the data to make two changes to 2022’s Southern Hemisphere vaccine formulation at its meeting on Sept. 24, after changing just one of the strains for the Northern Hemisphere vaccine at its meeting in February.

The CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older get the flu shot, with few exceptions.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

With the Delta variant of COVID-19 still raging in the United States and ICUs in parts of the country filled with patients with the coronavirus, experts are voicing concern about the added risk of a difficult flu season.

Two mathematical models are predicting a big rebound in the number and severity of flu cases in the 2021-22 season after 2020-2021’s flu season failed to show up when public health measures brought in to control COVID-19 seemed to have the added benefit of stopping the flu.

But both analyses, posted to the medRxiv preprint server and not yet peer reviewed by other experts, have come to the same conclusion: The flu could make a comeback this year.

In the worst-case scenario, the United States could see an extra 300,000-400,000 hospitalizations from the flu – almost double the usual number – according to senior study author Mark Roberts, MD, director of the Public Health Dynamics Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh. These numbers could be a disaster in areas where hospitals are already filled with COVID-19 patients.

Waning natural immunity in the public because of 2020-2021’s missing flu season could make people, especially young children, more likely to get the virus.

“Usually, a combination of natural immunity and vaccination helps tamp down seasonal influenza,” said Dr. Roberts. “If we don’t have the first part, we’ll have to rely more on the vaccine.”

In a typical year, about half of Americans get the flu shot. The new mathematical models predict that the vaccination rate would need to rise to about 75% to avoid the extra hospitalizations. But even a 10% increase in vaccination rates could reduce hospitalizations by 6%-46%, depending on what strains are dominant.

Usually, the Southern Hemisphere flu season, from February to August, helps show what the Northern Hemisphere can expect over the coming winter. But with strict COVID-19 measures and limits on international travel still in place in countries like Australia and New Zealand and much of South America, it has been another record-low year for flu infections, said Ian Barr, PhD, deputy director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center for Reference and Research on Influenza in Melbourne.

Australia detected only around 500 cases in 2021, compared with about 300,000 in a normal year, and recorded no hospitalizations or deaths from the flu. New Zealand recorded just two cases.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” Dr. Barr said.

In Australia, the mild flu season led to fewer people getting their flu shot than usual. The rate fell from around 50% to just 33%, said Dr. Barr. “If that happens in the U.S., the population will be even more vulnerable because there has been almost no flu for more than 12 months,” he said.

Both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Barr say it is vital that as many people as possible get vaccinated during the upcoming flu season, especially children who will have almost no natural immunity to the virus.

“The vaccine is our best weapon against the flu, especially for the most at-risk groups,” said Dr. Barr.

Other parts of the world had mixed results. India saw a high number of flu cases, while neighboring Sri Lanka had very few. West Africa also saw quite a high level of circulating virus. Overall, the flu was detected in 45 countries during the Southern Hemisphere season, less than half of what might be expected in a normal year, said Dr. Barr.

Despite the overall low numbers, the WHO saw enough in the data to make two changes to 2022’s Southern Hemisphere vaccine formulation at its meeting on Sept. 24, after changing just one of the strains for the Northern Hemisphere vaccine at its meeting in February.

The CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older get the flu shot, with few exceptions.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

The treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) is undergoing a revolution thanks to biologics. Now, an allergist and a dietitian told pediatric dermatologists that the treatment of a related condition – food allergy – is also undergoing a dramatic transformation as the management approach evolves away from blanket avoidance of allergens.

“Over the past 15 years, we’ve seen a shift from a very passive approach where generally we just advised patients to avoid the things they’re allergic to,” said U.K. pediatric allergist Adam Fox, MBBS, MD, in a presentation at The World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology (WCPD) 2021 Annual Meeting. “Now, we have a much better understanding of how allergy develops and strategies to minimize the risk of allergy happening in the first place,” he said.

According to Carina Venter, PhD, RD, associate professor of pediatrics-allergy/immunology at the University of Colorado, Denver, who also spoke at the conference, an estimated 20% to 30% of patients with AD also have food allergies, and up to 90% of infants with cow’s milk allergy develop skin symptoms.

It may not be necessary for a breastfeeding mother to avoid food allergens if a child is allergic, said Dr. Fox, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London. “A lot of parents will automatically assume that if their child has an egg or milk allergy, then it’s a good idea to completely eliminate that from their diet if they’re breastfeeding,” but it is “surprisingly uncommon” that this approach makes a difference, he said. “Less goes through the breast milk than people imagine,” he said.

He noted that eliminating foods from the breastfeeding mother’s diet may have negative consequences. “There’s always that risk that if you make life harder for the breastfeeding mom because they’re going to have to avoid all sorts of foods, they’ll be more likely to discontinue breastfeeding. You really need a compelling reason to stop the food.”

As for children themselves, Dr. Fox suggested that there’s often no connection between AD and food allergies. “What will commonly happen when you see and diagnose these kids is that their eczema has been quite significantly undertreated,” he said. “Once you just get them on the right [regimen], they don’t need to be cutting the food out of their diet. It’s just making their life unnecessarily harder.”

Dr. Venter said there may be little choice but to avoid a trigger food if a child develops AD with exposure. However, she noted, it’s important to understand that avoidance of certain foods could make the allergy – and AD – worse. “If you have a child or an adult with atopic dermatitis that’s not controlled by an optimal topical treatment, and you do consider avoidance, we need to be aware that development of more severe IgA-mediated symptoms can happen in a short period of time,” she said.

In a slide that Dr. Venter presented, the dilemma for physicians was expressed this way: “The potential benefit of food avoidance as a management strategy for some patients with AD must now be weighed against the strong evidence that unnecessarily avoiding a food in kids with AD increases the risk of developing anaphylaxis to that food.”

What should pediatric dermatologists do to balance the risks of allergen exposure to the risks that children will develop permanent allergies? Dr. Venter pointed to guidelines about AD that were developed by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. She also highlighted the International Milk Allergy in Primary Care recommendations.

She suggested considering creative ways to bypass complete avoidance and boost a child’s tolerance of allergens if possible. “If we’re going to keep a child with eczema on a mold-free diet for a longer period of time, is there perhaps a role for regularly introducing small amounts of yogurt or even small amounts of milk in the child’s diet to at least keep immune tolerance without necessarily aggravating eczema symptoms?”

Dr. Fox has consulted for DBV and Aimmune through his employer, NHS Trust. He serves as president of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology and as chair of the Allergy UK Health Advisory Board, both of which receive funding from drug companies. Dr. Venter has received support for allergy-related research from the National Peanut Board.

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

The treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) is undergoing a revolution thanks to biologics. Now, an allergist and a dietitian told pediatric dermatologists that the treatment of a related condition – food allergy – is also undergoing a dramatic transformation as the management approach evolves away from blanket avoidance of allergens.

“Over the past 15 years, we’ve seen a shift from a very passive approach where generally we just advised patients to avoid the things they’re allergic to,” said U.K. pediatric allergist Adam Fox, MBBS, MD, in a presentation at The World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology (WCPD) 2021 Annual Meeting. “Now, we have a much better understanding of how allergy develops and strategies to minimize the risk of allergy happening in the first place,” he said.

According to Carina Venter, PhD, RD, associate professor of pediatrics-allergy/immunology at the University of Colorado, Denver, who also spoke at the conference, an estimated 20% to 30% of patients with AD also have food allergies, and up to 90% of infants with cow’s milk allergy develop skin symptoms.

It may not be necessary for a breastfeeding mother to avoid food allergens if a child is allergic, said Dr. Fox, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London. “A lot of parents will automatically assume that if their child has an egg or milk allergy, then it’s a good idea to completely eliminate that from their diet if they’re breastfeeding,” but it is “surprisingly uncommon” that this approach makes a difference, he said. “Less goes through the breast milk than people imagine,” he said.

He noted that eliminating foods from the breastfeeding mother’s diet may have negative consequences. “There’s always that risk that if you make life harder for the breastfeeding mom because they’re going to have to avoid all sorts of foods, they’ll be more likely to discontinue breastfeeding. You really need a compelling reason to stop the food.”

As for children themselves, Dr. Fox suggested that there’s often no connection between AD and food allergies. “What will commonly happen when you see and diagnose these kids is that their eczema has been quite significantly undertreated,” he said. “Once you just get them on the right [regimen], they don’t need to be cutting the food out of their diet. It’s just making their life unnecessarily harder.”

Dr. Venter said there may be little choice but to avoid a trigger food if a child develops AD with exposure. However, she noted, it’s important to understand that avoidance of certain foods could make the allergy – and AD – worse. “If you have a child or an adult with atopic dermatitis that’s not controlled by an optimal topical treatment, and you do consider avoidance, we need to be aware that development of more severe IgA-mediated symptoms can happen in a short period of time,” she said.

In a slide that Dr. Venter presented, the dilemma for physicians was expressed this way: “The potential benefit of food avoidance as a management strategy for some patients with AD must now be weighed against the strong evidence that unnecessarily avoiding a food in kids with AD increases the risk of developing anaphylaxis to that food.”

What should pediatric dermatologists do to balance the risks of allergen exposure to the risks that children will develop permanent allergies? Dr. Venter pointed to guidelines about AD that were developed by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. She also highlighted the International Milk Allergy in Primary Care recommendations.

She suggested considering creative ways to bypass complete avoidance and boost a child’s tolerance of allergens if possible. “If we’re going to keep a child with eczema on a mold-free diet for a longer period of time, is there perhaps a role for regularly introducing small amounts of yogurt or even small amounts of milk in the child’s diet to at least keep immune tolerance without necessarily aggravating eczema symptoms?”

Dr. Fox has consulted for DBV and Aimmune through his employer, NHS Trust. He serves as president of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology and as chair of the Allergy UK Health Advisory Board, both of which receive funding from drug companies. Dr. Venter has received support for allergy-related research from the National Peanut Board.

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

The treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) is undergoing a revolution thanks to biologics. Now, an allergist and a dietitian told pediatric dermatologists that the treatment of a related condition – food allergy – is also undergoing a dramatic transformation as the management approach evolves away from blanket avoidance of allergens.

“Over the past 15 years, we’ve seen a shift from a very passive approach where generally we just advised patients to avoid the things they’re allergic to,” said U.K. pediatric allergist Adam Fox, MBBS, MD, in a presentation at The World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology (WCPD) 2021 Annual Meeting. “Now, we have a much better understanding of how allergy develops and strategies to minimize the risk of allergy happening in the first place,” he said.

According to Carina Venter, PhD, RD, associate professor of pediatrics-allergy/immunology at the University of Colorado, Denver, who also spoke at the conference, an estimated 20% to 30% of patients with AD also have food allergies, and up to 90% of infants with cow’s milk allergy develop skin symptoms.

It may not be necessary for a breastfeeding mother to avoid food allergens if a child is allergic, said Dr. Fox, of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London. “A lot of parents will automatically assume that if their child has an egg or milk allergy, then it’s a good idea to completely eliminate that from their diet if they’re breastfeeding,” but it is “surprisingly uncommon” that this approach makes a difference, he said. “Less goes through the breast milk than people imagine,” he said.

He noted that eliminating foods from the breastfeeding mother’s diet may have negative consequences. “There’s always that risk that if you make life harder for the breastfeeding mom because they’re going to have to avoid all sorts of foods, they’ll be more likely to discontinue breastfeeding. You really need a compelling reason to stop the food.”

As for children themselves, Dr. Fox suggested that there’s often no connection between AD and food allergies. “What will commonly happen when you see and diagnose these kids is that their eczema has been quite significantly undertreated,” he said. “Once you just get them on the right [regimen], they don’t need to be cutting the food out of their diet. It’s just making their life unnecessarily harder.”

Dr. Venter said there may be little choice but to avoid a trigger food if a child develops AD with exposure. However, she noted, it’s important to understand that avoidance of certain foods could make the allergy – and AD – worse. “If you have a child or an adult with atopic dermatitis that’s not controlled by an optimal topical treatment, and you do consider avoidance, we need to be aware that development of more severe IgA-mediated symptoms can happen in a short period of time,” she said.

In a slide that Dr. Venter presented, the dilemma for physicians was expressed this way: “The potential benefit of food avoidance as a management strategy for some patients with AD must now be weighed against the strong evidence that unnecessarily avoiding a food in kids with AD increases the risk of developing anaphylaxis to that food.”

What should pediatric dermatologists do to balance the risks of allergen exposure to the risks that children will develop permanent allergies? Dr. Venter pointed to guidelines about AD that were developed by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. She also highlighted the International Milk Allergy in Primary Care recommendations.

She suggested considering creative ways to bypass complete avoidance and boost a child’s tolerance of allergens if possible. “If we’re going to keep a child with eczema on a mold-free diet for a longer period of time, is there perhaps a role for regularly introducing small amounts of yogurt or even small amounts of milk in the child’s diet to at least keep immune tolerance without necessarily aggravating eczema symptoms?”

Dr. Fox has consulted for DBV and Aimmune through his employer, NHS Trust. He serves as president of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology and as chair of the Allergy UK Health Advisory Board, both of which receive funding from drug companies. Dr. Venter has received support for allergy-related research from the National Peanut Board.

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

Neuroscience research over the past half century has failed to significantly advance the treatment of severe mental illness.^1,2 Hence, evidence that a longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) aggravates—and early intervention with medication and social supports ameliorates—the long-term adverse consequences of psychotic disorders generated a great deal of interest.^3,4 This knowledge led to the development of diverse early intervention services worldwide aimed at this putative “critical window.” It raised the possibility that appropriate interventions could prevent the long-term disability that makes chronic psychosis one of the most debilitating disorders.^5,6 However, even beyond the varied cultural and economic confounds, it is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize program effectiveness.⁷ Obstacles include paucity of sufficiently powered, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the absence of diagnostic biomarkers or other prognostic indicators to better account for the inherent heterogeneity in the population and associated outcomes, and the absence of modifiable risk factors that can guide interventions and provide intermediate outcomes.^4,8-10

To better appreciate these issues, it is important to distinguish whether a program is designed to prevent psychosis, or to mitigate the effects of psychosis. Two models include the:

• Prevention model, which focuses on young individuals who are not yet overtly psychotic but at high risk
• First-episode recovery model, which focuses on those who have experienced a first episode of psychosis (FEP) but have not yet developed a chronic disorder.

Both models share long-term goals and are hampered by many of the same issues summarized above. They both deviate markedly from the standard medical model by including psychosocial services designed to promote restoration of a self-defined trajectory to greater independence.^11-14 The 2 differ, however, in the challenges they must overcome to produce their sample populations and establish effective interventions.^10,15,16

In this article, we provide a succinct overview of these issues and a set of recommendations based on a “strength-based” approach. This approach focuses on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team in the service of empowering patients to resume responsibility for transition to adulthood.

The prevention model

While most prevention initiatives in medicine rely on the growing ability to target specific pathophysiologic pathways,³ preventing psychosis relies on clinical evidence showing that DUP and early interventions predict a better course of severe mental illness.¹⁷ In contrast, initiatives such as normalizing neonatal neuronal pathways are more consistent with the strategy utilized in other fields but have yet to yield a pathophysiologic target for psychosis.^3,18

Initial efforts to identify ‘at-risk’ individuals

The prevention model of psychosis is based on the ability to identify young individuals at high risk for developing a psychotic disorder (Figure). The first screening measures were focused on prodromal psychosis (eg, significant loss of function, family history, and “intermittent” and “attenuated” psychotic symptoms). When applied to referred (ie, pre-screened) samples, 30% to 40% of this group who met criteria transitioned to psychosis over the next 1 to 3 years despite antidepressant and psychosocial interventions.¹⁹ Comprising 8 academic medical centers, the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) produced similar results using the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS).¹⁷ Thus, 30% to 50% of pre-screened individuals referred by school counselors and mental health professionals met SIPS criteria, and 35% of these individuals transitioned to psychosis over 30 months. The validity of this measure was further supported by the fact that higher baseline levels of unusual thought content, suspicion/paranoia, social impairment, and substance abuse successfully distinguished approximately 80% of those who transitioned to psychosis. The results of this first generation of screening studies were exciting because they seemed to demonstrate that highly concentrated samples of young persons at high risk of developing psychosis could be identified, and that fine-tuning the screening criteria could produce even more enriched samples (ie, positive predictive power).

Initial interventions produced promising results

The development of effective screening measures led to reports of effective treatment interventions. These were largely applied in a clinical staging model that restricted antipsychotic medications to those who failed to improve after receiving potentially “less toxic” interventions (eg, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and other antioxidants; psychotherapy; cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT]; family therapy).⁵ While study designs were typically quasi-experimental, the interventions appeared to dramatically diminish the transition to psychosis (ie, approximately 50%).

Continue to: The first generation...

The first generation of RCTs appeared to confirm these results, although sample sizes were small, and most study designs assessed only a single intervention. Initial meta-analyses of these data reported that both CBT and antipsychotics appeared to prevent approximately one-half of individuals from becoming psychotic at 12 months, and more than one-third at 2 to 4 years, compared with treatment as usual.²⁰

While some researchers challenged the validity of these findings,^21-23 the results generated tremendous international enthusiasm and calls for widespread implementation.⁶ The number of early intervention services (EIS) centers increased dramatically worldwide, and in 2014 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence released standards for interventions to prevent transition to psychosis.²⁴ These included close monitoring, CBT and family interventions, and avoiding antipsychotics when possible.²⁴

Focusing on sensitivity over specificity

The first generation of studies generated by the prevention model relied on outreach programs or referrals, which produced small samples of carefully selected, pre-screened individuals (Figure, Pre-screened) who were then screened again to establish the high-risk sample.²⁵ While approximately 33% of these individuals became psychotic, the screening process required a very efficient means of eliminating those not at high-risk (given the ultimate target population represented only approximately .5% of young people) (Figure). The pre-screening and screening processes in these first-generation studies were labor-intensive but could only identify approximately 5% of those individuals destined to become psychotic over the next 2 or 3 years. Thus, alternative methods to enhance sensitivity were needed to extend programming to the general population.

Second-generation pre-screening (Figure; Step 1). New pre-screening methods were identified that captured more individuals destined to become psychotic. For example, approximately 90% of this population were registered in health care organizations (eg, health maintenance organizations) and received a psychiatric diagnosis in the year prior to the onset of psychosis (true positives).⁸ These samples, however, contained a much higher percentage of persons not destined to become psychotic, and somehow the issue of specificity (decreasing false positives) was minimized.^8,9 For example, pre-screened samples contained 20 to 50 individuals not destined to become psychotic for each one who did.²⁶ Since screening measures could only eliminate approximately 20% of this group (Figure, Step 2, page 25), second-generation transition rates fell from 30% to 40% to 2% to 10%.^27,28

Other pre-screening approaches were introduced, but they also focused on capturing more of those destined to become psychotic (sensitivity) than eliminating those who would not (specificity). For instance, Australia opened more than 100 “Headspace” community centers nationwide designed to promote engagement and self-esteem in youth experiencing anxiety; depression; stress; relationship, work, or school problems; or bullying.¹³ Most services were free and included mental health staff who screened for psychosis and provided a wide range of services in a destigmatized setting. These methods identified at least an additional 5% to 7% of individuals destined to become psychotic, but to our knowledge, no data have been published on whether they helped eliminate those who did not.

Continue to: Second-generation screening

Second-generation screening (Figure, Step 2). A second screening aims to retain those pre-screened individuals who will become psychotic (ie, minimizing false negatives) while further minimizing those who do not (ie, minimizing false positives). The addition of cognitive, neural (eg, structural MRI; neurophysiologic), and biochemical (eg, inflammatory immune and stress) markers to the risk calculators have produced a sensitivity close to 100%.^8,9 Unfortunately, these studies downplayed specificity, which remained approximately 20%.^8,9 Specificity is critical not just because of concerns about stigma (ie, labeling people as pre-psychotic when they are not) but also because of the adverse effects of antipsychotic medications and the effects on future program development (interventions are costly and labor-intensive). Also, diluting the pool with individuals not at risk makes it nearly impossible to identify effective interventions (ie, power).^27,28

While some studies focused on increasing specificity (to approximately 75%), this leads to an unacceptable loss of sensitivity (from 90% to 60%),²⁹ with 40% of pre-screened individuals who would become psychotic being eliminated from the study population. The addition of other biological markers (eg, salivary cortisol)³⁰ and use of learning health systems may be able to enhance these numbers (initial reports of specificity = 87% and sensitivity = 85%).^8,9 This is accomplished by integrating artificial and human intelligence measures of clinical (symptom and neurocognitive measures) and biological (eg, polygenetic risk scores; gray matter volume) variables.³¹ However, even if these results are replicated, more effective pre-screening measures will be required.

Identifying a suitable sample population for prevention program studies is clearly more complicated than for FEP studies, where one can usually identify many of those in the at-risk population by their first hospitalization for psychotic symptoms. The issues of false positives (eg, substance-induced psychosis) and negatives (eg, slow deterioration, prominent negative symptoms) are important concerns, but proportionately far less significant.

Prevention and FEP interventions

Once a study sample is constituted, 1 to 3 years of treatment interventions are initiated. Interventions for prevention programs typically include CBT directed at attenuated psychosis (eg, reframing or de-catastrophizing unusual thoughts and minimizing distress associated with unusual perceptions); case management to facilitate personal, educational, and vocational goals; and family therapy in single or multi-group formats to educate one’s support system about the risk state and to minimize adverse familial responses.¹⁴ Many programs also include supported education or employment services to promote reintegration in age-appropriate activities; group therapy focused on substance abuse and social skills training; cognitive remediation to ameliorate the cognitive dysfunction; and an array of pharmacologic interventions designed to delay or prevent transition to psychosis or to alleviate symptoms. While most interventions are similar, FEP programs have recently included peer support staff. This appears to instill hope in newly diagnosed patients, provide role models, and provide peer supporters an opportunity to use their experiences to help others and earn income.³²

The breadth and depth of these services are critical because retention in the program is highly dependent on participant engagement, which in turn is highly dependent on whether the program can help individuals get what they want (eg, friends, employment, education, more autonomy, physical health). The setting and atmosphere of the treatment program and the willingness/ability of staff to meet participants in the community are also important elements.^11,12 In this context, the Headspace community centers are having an impact far beyond Australia and may prove to be a particularly good model.¹³

Continue to: Assessing prevention and FEP interventions

The second generation of studies of prevention programs has not confirmed, let alone extended, the earlier findings and meta-analyses. A 2020 report concluded CBT was still the most promising intervention; it was more effective than control treatments at 12 and 18 months, although not at 6, 24, or 48 months.³³ This review included controlled, open-label, and naturalistic studies that assessed family therapy; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; integrated psychological therapy (a package of interventions that included family education, CBT, social skills training, and cognitive remediation); N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor modulators; mood stabilizers; and antipsychotics. In addition to the evidence supporting CBT, the results also indicated nonsignificant trends favoring family and integrated psychological therapy. Neither a 2019 Cochrane review³⁴ nor a 2020 “umbrella” assessment of 42 meta-analyses⁹ found convincing evidence for the efficacy of any program components.

While these disappointing findings are at least partly attributable to the methodological challenges described above and in the Figure, other factors may hinder establishing effective interventions. In contrast to FEP studies, those focused on prevention had a very ambitious agenda (eliminating psychosis) and tended to downplay more modest intermediate outcomes. These studies also tended to assess new ideas with small samples rather than pursue promising findings with larger multi-site studies focused on a group of interventions. The authors of a Cochrane review observed “There is the impression that in this whole area there is a triumph of hope over adversity. There is the repeated hope invested in another—often unique—study question and then a study of fewer than 100 participants are completed. This results in the set of comparisons reported here, all 9 of which are too underpowered to really highlight clear differences.”³⁴ To use a baseball analogy, it seems that investigators are “swinging for the fence” when a few singles are what’s really needed.

From the outset, the goals of FEP studies were more modest, largely ignoring the task of developing consensus definitions of recovery that require following patients for up to 5 to 10 years. Instead, they use intermediate endpoints based on adapting treatments that already appeared effective in patients with chronic mental disorders.³⁵ As a consequence, researchers examining FEP demonstrated clear, albeit limited, salutary effects using large multi-site trials and previously established outcome measures.^3,10,36 For instance, the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode-Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP) study was a 2-year, multi-site RCT (N = 404) funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The investigators reported improved indices of social function (eg, quality of life; education and work participation) and total ratings of psychopathology and depression compared with treatment as usual. Furthermore, they established that DUP predicted treatment response.³⁵ The latter finding was underscored by improvement being limited to the 50% with <74 weeks DUP. Annual costs of the program per 1 standard deviation improvement in quality of life were approximately $1,000 for patients with <74 weeks DUP and $40,000 for those with >74 weeks DUP. Concurrent meta-analyses confirmed and extended these findings,¹⁶ showing higher remission rates; diminished relapses and hospital admissions; greater engagement in programming; greater involvement in work and school; improved quality of life; and other steps toward recovery. These studies were also able to establish a clear benefit of antipsychotic medications, particularly a high acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, which promoted adherence and decreased some adverse events³⁷; and early use of clozapine therapy, which improved remission rates and longer-term outcomes.³⁸ Other findings underscored the need to anticipate and address new problems associated with effective antipsychotic therapy (eg, antipsychotic response correlates with weight gain, a particularly intolerable adverse event for this age group).³⁹ Providing pre-emptive strategies such as exercise groups and nutritional education may be necessary to maintain adherence.

Limitations of FEP studies

The effect sizes in these FEP studies were small to medium on outcome measures tracking recovery and associated indicators (eg, global functioning, school/work participation, treatment engagement); the number needed to treat for each of these was >10. There is no clear evidence that recovery programs such as RAISE-ETP actually reduce longer-term disability. Most studies showed disability payments increased while clinical benefits tended to fade over time. In addition, by grouping interventions together, the studies made it difficult to identify effective vs ineffective treatments, let alone determine how best to personalize therapy for participants in future studies.

The next generation of FEP studies

While limited in scope, the results of the recent FEP studies justify a next generation of recovery interventions designed to address these shortcomings and optimize program outcomes.³⁹ Most previous FEP studies were conducted in community mental health center settings, thus eliminating the need to transition services developed in academia into the “real world.” The next generation of NIMH studies will be primarily conducted in analogous settings under the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).⁴⁰ EPINET’s study design echoes that responsible for the stepwise successes in the late 20th century that produced cures for the deadliest childhood cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This disease was successfully treated by modifying diverse evidence-based practices without relying on pharmacologic or other major treatment breakthroughs. Despite this, the effort yielded successful personalized interventions that were not obtainable for other severe childhood conditions.⁴⁰ EPINET hopes to automate much of these stepwise advances with a learning health system. This program relies on data routinely collected in clinical practice to drive the process of scientific discovery. Specifically, it determines the relationships between clinical features, biologic measures, treatment characteristics, and symptomatic and functional outcomes. EPINET aims to accelerate our understanding of biomarkers of psychosis risk and onset, as well as factors associated with recovery and cure. Dashboard displays of outcomes will allow for real-time comparisons within and across early intervention clinics. This in turn identifies performance gaps and drives continuous quality improvement.

Continue to: Barriers to optimizing program efficacy for both models

Unfortunately, there are stark differences between ALL and severe mental disorders that potentially jeopardize the achievement of these aims, despite the advances in data analytic abilities that drive the learning health system. Specifically, the heterogeneity of psychotic illnesses and the absence of reliable prognostic and modifiable risk markers (responsible for failed efforts to enhance treatment of serious mental illness over the last half century^1,2,41) are unlikely to be resolved by a learning health system. These measures are vital to determine whether specific interventions are effective, particularly given the absence of a randomized control group in the EPINET/learning health system design. Fortunately, however, the National Institutes for Health has recently initiated the Accelerating Medicines Partnership–Schizophrenia (AMP-SCZ). This approach seeks “promising biological markers that can help identify those at risk of developing schizophrenia as early as possible, track the progression of symptoms and other outcomes and ultimately define targets for treatment development.”⁴² The Box^{1,4,9,10,36,41,43-45} describes some of the challenges involved in identifying biomarkers of severe mental illness.

Box

A strength-based approach

The absence of sufficiently powered RCTs for prevention studies and the reliance on intermediate outcomes for FEP studies leaves unanswered whether such programs can effectively prevent chronic psychosis at a cost society is willing to pay. Still, substantial evidence indicates that outreach, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, early consideration of clozapine, family therapy, CBT for psychosis/attenuated psychosis, and services focused on competitive employment can preserve social and occupational functioning.^16,34 Until these broader questions are more definitively addressed, it seems reasonable to apply what we have learned (Table^{11,12,35,37-39,46}).

Simply avoiding the most divisive aspects of the medical model that inadvertently promote stigma and undercut self-confidence may help maintain patients’ willingness to learn how best to apply their strengths and manage their limitations.¹¹ The progression to enduring psychotic features (eg, fixed delusions) may reflect ongoing social isolation and alienation. A strength-based approach seeks first to establish common goals (eg, school, work, friends, family support, housing, leaving home) and then works to empower the patient to successfully reach those goals.³⁵ This typically involves giving them the opportunity to fail, avoiding criticism when they do, and focusing on these experiences as learning opportunities from which success can ultimately result.

It is difficult to offer all these services in a typical private practice setting. Instead, it may make more sense to use one of the hundreds of early intervention services programs in the United States.⁴⁶ If a psychiatric clinician is dedicated to working with this population, it may also be possible to establish ongoing relationships with primary care physicians, family and CBT therapists, family support services (eg, National Alliance on Mental Illness), caseworkers and employment counselors. In essence, a psychiatrist may be able re-create a multidisciplinary effort by taking advantage of the expertise of these various professionals. The challenge is to create a consistent message for patients and families in the absence of regular meetings with the clinical team, although the recent reliance on and improved sophistication of virtual meetings may help. Psychiatrists often play a critical role even when the patient is not prescribed medication, partly because they are most comfortable handling the risks and may have the most comprehensive understanding of the issues at play. When medications are appropriate and patients with FEP are willing to take them, early consideration of long-acting injectable antipsychotics and clozapine may provide better stabilization and diminish the risk of earlier and more frequent relapses.

Bottom Line

Early interventions for psychosis include the prevention model and the first-episode recovery model. It is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize the effectiveness of such programs. Current evidence supports a ‘strength-based’ approach focused on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team.

Related Resources

• Early Assessment and Support Alliance. National Early Psychosis Directory. https://easacommunity.org/nationaldirectory.php
• Kane JM, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, et al. Comprehensive versus usual community care for first-episode psychosis: 2-year outcomes from the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 ;173(4):362-372

Drug Brand Name

Clozapine • Clozaril

Neuroscience research over the past half century has failed to significantly advance the treatment of severe mental illness.^1,2 Hence, evidence that a longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) aggravates—and early intervention with medication and social supports ameliorates—the long-term adverse consequences of psychotic disorders generated a great deal of interest.^3,4 This knowledge led to the development of diverse early intervention services worldwide aimed at this putative “critical window.” It raised the possibility that appropriate interventions could prevent the long-term disability that makes chronic psychosis one of the most debilitating disorders.^5,6 However, even beyond the varied cultural and economic confounds, it is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize program effectiveness.⁷ Obstacles include paucity of sufficiently powered, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the absence of diagnostic biomarkers or other prognostic indicators to better account for the inherent heterogeneity in the population and associated outcomes, and the absence of modifiable risk factors that can guide interventions and provide intermediate outcomes.^4,8-10

To better appreciate these issues, it is important to distinguish whether a program is designed to prevent psychosis, or to mitigate the effects of psychosis. Two models include the:

• Prevention model, which focuses on young individuals who are not yet overtly psychotic but at high risk
• First-episode recovery model, which focuses on those who have experienced a first episode of psychosis (FEP) but have not yet developed a chronic disorder.

Both models share long-term goals and are hampered by many of the same issues summarized above. They both deviate markedly from the standard medical model by including psychosocial services designed to promote restoration of a self-defined trajectory to greater independence.^11-14 The 2 differ, however, in the challenges they must overcome to produce their sample populations and establish effective interventions.^10,15,16

In this article, we provide a succinct overview of these issues and a set of recommendations based on a “strength-based” approach. This approach focuses on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team in the service of empowering patients to resume responsibility for transition to adulthood.

The prevention model

While most prevention initiatives in medicine rely on the growing ability to target specific pathophysiologic pathways,³ preventing psychosis relies on clinical evidence showing that DUP and early interventions predict a better course of severe mental illness.¹⁷ In contrast, initiatives such as normalizing neonatal neuronal pathways are more consistent with the strategy utilized in other fields but have yet to yield a pathophysiologic target for psychosis.^3,18

Initial efforts to identify ‘at-risk’ individuals

The prevention model of psychosis is based on the ability to identify young individuals at high risk for developing a psychotic disorder (Figure). The first screening measures were focused on prodromal psychosis (eg, significant loss of function, family history, and “intermittent” and “attenuated” psychotic symptoms). When applied to referred (ie, pre-screened) samples, 30% to 40% of this group who met criteria transitioned to psychosis over the next 1 to 3 years despite antidepressant and psychosocial interventions.¹⁹ Comprising 8 academic medical centers, the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) produced similar results using the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS).¹⁷ Thus, 30% to 50% of pre-screened individuals referred by school counselors and mental health professionals met SIPS criteria, and 35% of these individuals transitioned to psychosis over 30 months. The validity of this measure was further supported by the fact that higher baseline levels of unusual thought content, suspicion/paranoia, social impairment, and substance abuse successfully distinguished approximately 80% of those who transitioned to psychosis. The results of this first generation of screening studies were exciting because they seemed to demonstrate that highly concentrated samples of young persons at high risk of developing psychosis could be identified, and that fine-tuning the screening criteria could produce even more enriched samples (ie, positive predictive power).

Initial interventions produced promising results

The development of effective screening measures led to reports of effective treatment interventions. These were largely applied in a clinical staging model that restricted antipsychotic medications to those who failed to improve after receiving potentially “less toxic” interventions (eg, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and other antioxidants; psychotherapy; cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT]; family therapy).⁵ While study designs were typically quasi-experimental, the interventions appeared to dramatically diminish the transition to psychosis (ie, approximately 50%).

Continue to: The first generation...

The first generation of RCTs appeared to confirm these results, although sample sizes were small, and most study designs assessed only a single intervention. Initial meta-analyses of these data reported that both CBT and antipsychotics appeared to prevent approximately one-half of individuals from becoming psychotic at 12 months, and more than one-third at 2 to 4 years, compared with treatment as usual.²⁰

While some researchers challenged the validity of these findings,^21-23 the results generated tremendous international enthusiasm and calls for widespread implementation.⁶ The number of early intervention services (EIS) centers increased dramatically worldwide, and in 2014 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence released standards for interventions to prevent transition to psychosis.²⁴ These included close monitoring, CBT and family interventions, and avoiding antipsychotics when possible.²⁴

Focusing on sensitivity over specificity

The first generation of studies generated by the prevention model relied on outreach programs or referrals, which produced small samples of carefully selected, pre-screened individuals (Figure, Pre-screened) who were then screened again to establish the high-risk sample.²⁵ While approximately 33% of these individuals became psychotic, the screening process required a very efficient means of eliminating those not at high-risk (given the ultimate target population represented only approximately .5% of young people) (Figure). The pre-screening and screening processes in these first-generation studies were labor-intensive but could only identify approximately 5% of those individuals destined to become psychotic over the next 2 or 3 years. Thus, alternative methods to enhance sensitivity were needed to extend programming to the general population.

Second-generation pre-screening (Figure; Step 1). New pre-screening methods were identified that captured more individuals destined to become psychotic. For example, approximately 90% of this population were registered in health care organizations (eg, health maintenance organizations) and received a psychiatric diagnosis in the year prior to the onset of psychosis (true positives).⁸ These samples, however, contained a much higher percentage of persons not destined to become psychotic, and somehow the issue of specificity (decreasing false positives) was minimized.^8,9 For example, pre-screened samples contained 20 to 50 individuals not destined to become psychotic for each one who did.²⁶ Since screening measures could only eliminate approximately 20% of this group (Figure, Step 2, page 25), second-generation transition rates fell from 30% to 40% to 2% to 10%.^27,28

Other pre-screening approaches were introduced, but they also focused on capturing more of those destined to become psychotic (sensitivity) than eliminating those who would not (specificity). For instance, Australia opened more than 100 “Headspace” community centers nationwide designed to promote engagement and self-esteem in youth experiencing anxiety; depression; stress; relationship, work, or school problems; or bullying.¹³ Most services were free and included mental health staff who screened for psychosis and provided a wide range of services in a destigmatized setting. These methods identified at least an additional 5% to 7% of individuals destined to become psychotic, but to our knowledge, no data have been published on whether they helped eliminate those who did not.

Continue to: Second-generation screening

Second-generation screening (Figure, Step 2). A second screening aims to retain those pre-screened individuals who will become psychotic (ie, minimizing false negatives) while further minimizing those who do not (ie, minimizing false positives). The addition of cognitive, neural (eg, structural MRI; neurophysiologic), and biochemical (eg, inflammatory immune and stress) markers to the risk calculators have produced a sensitivity close to 100%.^8,9 Unfortunately, these studies downplayed specificity, which remained approximately 20%.^8,9 Specificity is critical not just because of concerns about stigma (ie, labeling people as pre-psychotic when they are not) but also because of the adverse effects of antipsychotic medications and the effects on future program development (interventions are costly and labor-intensive). Also, diluting the pool with individuals not at risk makes it nearly impossible to identify effective interventions (ie, power).^27,28

While some studies focused on increasing specificity (to approximately 75%), this leads to an unacceptable loss of sensitivity (from 90% to 60%),²⁹ with 40% of pre-screened individuals who would become psychotic being eliminated from the study population. The addition of other biological markers (eg, salivary cortisol)³⁰ and use of learning health systems may be able to enhance these numbers (initial reports of specificity = 87% and sensitivity = 85%).^8,9 This is accomplished by integrating artificial and human intelligence measures of clinical (symptom and neurocognitive measures) and biological (eg, polygenetic risk scores; gray matter volume) variables.³¹ However, even if these results are replicated, more effective pre-screening measures will be required.

Identifying a suitable sample population for prevention program studies is clearly more complicated than for FEP studies, where one can usually identify many of those in the at-risk population by their first hospitalization for psychotic symptoms. The issues of false positives (eg, substance-induced psychosis) and negatives (eg, slow deterioration, prominent negative symptoms) are important concerns, but proportionately far less significant.

Prevention and FEP interventions

Once a study sample is constituted, 1 to 3 years of treatment interventions are initiated. Interventions for prevention programs typically include CBT directed at attenuated psychosis (eg, reframing or de-catastrophizing unusual thoughts and minimizing distress associated with unusual perceptions); case management to facilitate personal, educational, and vocational goals; and family therapy in single or multi-group formats to educate one’s support system about the risk state and to minimize adverse familial responses.¹⁴ Many programs also include supported education or employment services to promote reintegration in age-appropriate activities; group therapy focused on substance abuse and social skills training; cognitive remediation to ameliorate the cognitive dysfunction; and an array of pharmacologic interventions designed to delay or prevent transition to psychosis or to alleviate symptoms. While most interventions are similar, FEP programs have recently included peer support staff. This appears to instill hope in newly diagnosed patients, provide role models, and provide peer supporters an opportunity to use their experiences to help others and earn income.³²

The breadth and depth of these services are critical because retention in the program is highly dependent on participant engagement, which in turn is highly dependent on whether the program can help individuals get what they want (eg, friends, employment, education, more autonomy, physical health). The setting and atmosphere of the treatment program and the willingness/ability of staff to meet participants in the community are also important elements.^11,12 In this context, the Headspace community centers are having an impact far beyond Australia and may prove to be a particularly good model.¹³

Continue to: Assessing prevention and FEP interventions

The second generation of studies of prevention programs has not confirmed, let alone extended, the earlier findings and meta-analyses. A 2020 report concluded CBT was still the most promising intervention; it was more effective than control treatments at 12 and 18 months, although not at 6, 24, or 48 months.³³ This review included controlled, open-label, and naturalistic studies that assessed family therapy; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; integrated psychological therapy (a package of interventions that included family education, CBT, social skills training, and cognitive remediation); N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor modulators; mood stabilizers; and antipsychotics. In addition to the evidence supporting CBT, the results also indicated nonsignificant trends favoring family and integrated psychological therapy. Neither a 2019 Cochrane review³⁴ nor a 2020 “umbrella” assessment of 42 meta-analyses⁹ found convincing evidence for the efficacy of any program components.

While these disappointing findings are at least partly attributable to the methodological challenges described above and in the Figure, other factors may hinder establishing effective interventions. In contrast to FEP studies, those focused on prevention had a very ambitious agenda (eliminating psychosis) and tended to downplay more modest intermediate outcomes. These studies also tended to assess new ideas with small samples rather than pursue promising findings with larger multi-site studies focused on a group of interventions. The authors of a Cochrane review observed “There is the impression that in this whole area there is a triumph of hope over adversity. There is the repeated hope invested in another—often unique—study question and then a study of fewer than 100 participants are completed. This results in the set of comparisons reported here, all 9 of which are too underpowered to really highlight clear differences.”³⁴ To use a baseball analogy, it seems that investigators are “swinging for the fence” when a few singles are what’s really needed.

From the outset, the goals of FEP studies were more modest, largely ignoring the task of developing consensus definitions of recovery that require following patients for up to 5 to 10 years. Instead, they use intermediate endpoints based on adapting treatments that already appeared effective in patients with chronic mental disorders.³⁵ As a consequence, researchers examining FEP demonstrated clear, albeit limited, salutary effects using large multi-site trials and previously established outcome measures.^3,10,36 For instance, the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode-Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP) study was a 2-year, multi-site RCT (N = 404) funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The investigators reported improved indices of social function (eg, quality of life; education and work participation) and total ratings of psychopathology and depression compared with treatment as usual. Furthermore, they established that DUP predicted treatment response.³⁵ The latter finding was underscored by improvement being limited to the 50% with <74 weeks DUP. Annual costs of the program per 1 standard deviation improvement in quality of life were approximately $1,000 for patients with <74 weeks DUP and $40,000 for those with >74 weeks DUP. Concurrent meta-analyses confirmed and extended these findings,¹⁶ showing higher remission rates; diminished relapses and hospital admissions; greater engagement in programming; greater involvement in work and school; improved quality of life; and other steps toward recovery. These studies were also able to establish a clear benefit of antipsychotic medications, particularly a high acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, which promoted adherence and decreased some adverse events³⁷; and early use of clozapine therapy, which improved remission rates and longer-term outcomes.³⁸ Other findings underscored the need to anticipate and address new problems associated with effective antipsychotic therapy (eg, antipsychotic response correlates with weight gain, a particularly intolerable adverse event for this age group).³⁹ Providing pre-emptive strategies such as exercise groups and nutritional education may be necessary to maintain adherence.

Limitations of FEP studies

The effect sizes in these FEP studies were small to medium on outcome measures tracking recovery and associated indicators (eg, global functioning, school/work participation, treatment engagement); the number needed to treat for each of these was >10. There is no clear evidence that recovery programs such as RAISE-ETP actually reduce longer-term disability. Most studies showed disability payments increased while clinical benefits tended to fade over time. In addition, by grouping interventions together, the studies made it difficult to identify effective vs ineffective treatments, let alone determine how best to personalize therapy for participants in future studies.

The next generation of FEP studies

While limited in scope, the results of the recent FEP studies justify a next generation of recovery interventions designed to address these shortcomings and optimize program outcomes.³⁹ Most previous FEP studies were conducted in community mental health center settings, thus eliminating the need to transition services developed in academia into the “real world.” The next generation of NIMH studies will be primarily conducted in analogous settings under the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).⁴⁰ EPINET’s study design echoes that responsible for the stepwise successes in the late 20th century that produced cures for the deadliest childhood cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This disease was successfully treated by modifying diverse evidence-based practices without relying on pharmacologic or other major treatment breakthroughs. Despite this, the effort yielded successful personalized interventions that were not obtainable for other severe childhood conditions.⁴⁰ EPINET hopes to automate much of these stepwise advances with a learning health system. This program relies on data routinely collected in clinical practice to drive the process of scientific discovery. Specifically, it determines the relationships between clinical features, biologic measures, treatment characteristics, and symptomatic and functional outcomes. EPINET aims to accelerate our understanding of biomarkers of psychosis risk and onset, as well as factors associated with recovery and cure. Dashboard displays of outcomes will allow for real-time comparisons within and across early intervention clinics. This in turn identifies performance gaps and drives continuous quality improvement.

Continue to: Barriers to optimizing program efficacy for both models

Unfortunately, there are stark differences between ALL and severe mental disorders that potentially jeopardize the achievement of these aims, despite the advances in data analytic abilities that drive the learning health system. Specifically, the heterogeneity of psychotic illnesses and the absence of reliable prognostic and modifiable risk markers (responsible for failed efforts to enhance treatment of serious mental illness over the last half century^1,2,41) are unlikely to be resolved by a learning health system. These measures are vital to determine whether specific interventions are effective, particularly given the absence of a randomized control group in the EPINET/learning health system design. Fortunately, however, the National Institutes for Health has recently initiated the Accelerating Medicines Partnership–Schizophrenia (AMP-SCZ). This approach seeks “promising biological markers that can help identify those at risk of developing schizophrenia as early as possible, track the progression of symptoms and other outcomes and ultimately define targets for treatment development.”⁴² The Box^{1,4,9,10,36,41,43-45} describes some of the challenges involved in identifying biomarkers of severe mental illness.

Box

A strength-based approach

The absence of sufficiently powered RCTs for prevention studies and the reliance on intermediate outcomes for FEP studies leaves unanswered whether such programs can effectively prevent chronic psychosis at a cost society is willing to pay. Still, substantial evidence indicates that outreach, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, early consideration of clozapine, family therapy, CBT for psychosis/attenuated psychosis, and services focused on competitive employment can preserve social and occupational functioning.^16,34 Until these broader questions are more definitively addressed, it seems reasonable to apply what we have learned (Table^{11,12,35,37-39,46}).

Simply avoiding the most divisive aspects of the medical model that inadvertently promote stigma and undercut self-confidence may help maintain patients’ willingness to learn how best to apply their strengths and manage their limitations.¹¹ The progression to enduring psychotic features (eg, fixed delusions) may reflect ongoing social isolation and alienation. A strength-based approach seeks first to establish common goals (eg, school, work, friends, family support, housing, leaving home) and then works to empower the patient to successfully reach those goals.³⁵ This typically involves giving them the opportunity to fail, avoiding criticism when they do, and focusing on these experiences as learning opportunities from which success can ultimately result.

It is difficult to offer all these services in a typical private practice setting. Instead, it may make more sense to use one of the hundreds of early intervention services programs in the United States.⁴⁶ If a psychiatric clinician is dedicated to working with this population, it may also be possible to establish ongoing relationships with primary care physicians, family and CBT therapists, family support services (eg, National Alliance on Mental Illness), caseworkers and employment counselors. In essence, a psychiatrist may be able re-create a multidisciplinary effort by taking advantage of the expertise of these various professionals. The challenge is to create a consistent message for patients and families in the absence of regular meetings with the clinical team, although the recent reliance on and improved sophistication of virtual meetings may help. Psychiatrists often play a critical role even when the patient is not prescribed medication, partly because they are most comfortable handling the risks and may have the most comprehensive understanding of the issues at play. When medications are appropriate and patients with FEP are willing to take them, early consideration of long-acting injectable antipsychotics and clozapine may provide better stabilization and diminish the risk of earlier and more frequent relapses.

Bottom Line

Early interventions for psychosis include the prevention model and the first-episode recovery model. It is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize the effectiveness of such programs. Current evidence supports a ‘strength-based’ approach focused on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team.

Related Resources

• Early Assessment and Support Alliance. National Early Psychosis Directory. https://easacommunity.org/nationaldirectory.php
• Kane JM, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, et al. Comprehensive versus usual community care for first-episode psychosis: 2-year outcomes from the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 ;173(4):362-372

Drug Brand Name

Clozapine • Clozaril

Neuroscience research over the past half century has failed to significantly advance the treatment of severe mental illness.^1,2 Hence, evidence that a longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) aggravates—and early intervention with medication and social supports ameliorates—the long-term adverse consequences of psychotic disorders generated a great deal of interest.^3,4 This knowledge led to the development of diverse early intervention services worldwide aimed at this putative “critical window.” It raised the possibility that appropriate interventions could prevent the long-term disability that makes chronic psychosis one of the most debilitating disorders.^5,6 However, even beyond the varied cultural and economic confounds, it is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize program effectiveness.⁷ Obstacles include paucity of sufficiently powered, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the absence of diagnostic biomarkers or other prognostic indicators to better account for the inherent heterogeneity in the population and associated outcomes, and the absence of modifiable risk factors that can guide interventions and provide intermediate outcomes.^4,8-10

To better appreciate these issues, it is important to distinguish whether a program is designed to prevent psychosis, or to mitigate the effects of psychosis. Two models include the:

• Prevention model, which focuses on young individuals who are not yet overtly psychotic but at high risk
• First-episode recovery model, which focuses on those who have experienced a first episode of psychosis (FEP) but have not yet developed a chronic disorder.

Both models share long-term goals and are hampered by many of the same issues summarized above. They both deviate markedly from the standard medical model by including psychosocial services designed to promote restoration of a self-defined trajectory to greater independence.^11-14 The 2 differ, however, in the challenges they must overcome to produce their sample populations and establish effective interventions.^10,15,16

In this article, we provide a succinct overview of these issues and a set of recommendations based on a “strength-based” approach. This approach focuses on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team in the service of empowering patients to resume responsibility for transition to adulthood.

The prevention model

While most prevention initiatives in medicine rely on the growing ability to target specific pathophysiologic pathways,³ preventing psychosis relies on clinical evidence showing that DUP and early interventions predict a better course of severe mental illness.¹⁷ In contrast, initiatives such as normalizing neonatal neuronal pathways are more consistent with the strategy utilized in other fields but have yet to yield a pathophysiologic target for psychosis.^3,18

Initial efforts to identify ‘at-risk’ individuals

The prevention model of psychosis is based on the ability to identify young individuals at high risk for developing a psychotic disorder (Figure). The first screening measures were focused on prodromal psychosis (eg, significant loss of function, family history, and “intermittent” and “attenuated” psychotic symptoms). When applied to referred (ie, pre-screened) samples, 30% to 40% of this group who met criteria transitioned to psychosis over the next 1 to 3 years despite antidepressant and psychosocial interventions.¹⁹ Comprising 8 academic medical centers, the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) produced similar results using the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS).¹⁷ Thus, 30% to 50% of pre-screened individuals referred by school counselors and mental health professionals met SIPS criteria, and 35% of these individuals transitioned to psychosis over 30 months. The validity of this measure was further supported by the fact that higher baseline levels of unusual thought content, suspicion/paranoia, social impairment, and substance abuse successfully distinguished approximately 80% of those who transitioned to psychosis. The results of this first generation of screening studies were exciting because they seemed to demonstrate that highly concentrated samples of young persons at high risk of developing psychosis could be identified, and that fine-tuning the screening criteria could produce even more enriched samples (ie, positive predictive power).

Initial interventions produced promising results

The development of effective screening measures led to reports of effective treatment interventions. These were largely applied in a clinical staging model that restricted antipsychotic medications to those who failed to improve after receiving potentially “less toxic” interventions (eg, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and other antioxidants; psychotherapy; cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT]; family therapy).⁵ While study designs were typically quasi-experimental, the interventions appeared to dramatically diminish the transition to psychosis (ie, approximately 50%).

Continue to: The first generation...

The first generation of RCTs appeared to confirm these results, although sample sizes were small, and most study designs assessed only a single intervention. Initial meta-analyses of these data reported that both CBT and antipsychotics appeared to prevent approximately one-half of individuals from becoming psychotic at 12 months, and more than one-third at 2 to 4 years, compared with treatment as usual.²⁰

While some researchers challenged the validity of these findings,^21-23 the results generated tremendous international enthusiasm and calls for widespread implementation.⁶ The number of early intervention services (EIS) centers increased dramatically worldwide, and in 2014 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence released standards for interventions to prevent transition to psychosis.²⁴ These included close monitoring, CBT and family interventions, and avoiding antipsychotics when possible.²⁴

Focusing on sensitivity over specificity

The first generation of studies generated by the prevention model relied on outreach programs or referrals, which produced small samples of carefully selected, pre-screened individuals (Figure, Pre-screened) who were then screened again to establish the high-risk sample.²⁵ While approximately 33% of these individuals became psychotic, the screening process required a very efficient means of eliminating those not at high-risk (given the ultimate target population represented only approximately .5% of young people) (Figure). The pre-screening and screening processes in these first-generation studies were labor-intensive but could only identify approximately 5% of those individuals destined to become psychotic over the next 2 or 3 years. Thus, alternative methods to enhance sensitivity were needed to extend programming to the general population.

Second-generation pre-screening (Figure; Step 1). New pre-screening methods were identified that captured more individuals destined to become psychotic. For example, approximately 90% of this population were registered in health care organizations (eg, health maintenance organizations) and received a psychiatric diagnosis in the year prior to the onset of psychosis (true positives).⁸ These samples, however, contained a much higher percentage of persons not destined to become psychotic, and somehow the issue of specificity (decreasing false positives) was minimized.^8,9 For example, pre-screened samples contained 20 to 50 individuals not destined to become psychotic for each one who did.²⁶ Since screening measures could only eliminate approximately 20% of this group (Figure, Step 2, page 25), second-generation transition rates fell from 30% to 40% to 2% to 10%.^27,28

Other pre-screening approaches were introduced, but they also focused on capturing more of those destined to become psychotic (sensitivity) than eliminating those who would not (specificity). For instance, Australia opened more than 100 “Headspace” community centers nationwide designed to promote engagement and self-esteem in youth experiencing anxiety; depression; stress; relationship, work, or school problems; or bullying.¹³ Most services were free and included mental health staff who screened for psychosis and provided a wide range of services in a destigmatized setting. These methods identified at least an additional 5% to 7% of individuals destined to become psychotic, but to our knowledge, no data have been published on whether they helped eliminate those who did not.

Continue to: Second-generation screening

Second-generation screening (Figure, Step 2). A second screening aims to retain those pre-screened individuals who will become psychotic (ie, minimizing false negatives) while further minimizing those who do not (ie, minimizing false positives). The addition of cognitive, neural (eg, structural MRI; neurophysiologic), and biochemical (eg, inflammatory immune and stress) markers to the risk calculators have produced a sensitivity close to 100%.^8,9 Unfortunately, these studies downplayed specificity, which remained approximately 20%.^8,9 Specificity is critical not just because of concerns about stigma (ie, labeling people as pre-psychotic when they are not) but also because of the adverse effects of antipsychotic medications and the effects on future program development (interventions are costly and labor-intensive). Also, diluting the pool with individuals not at risk makes it nearly impossible to identify effective interventions (ie, power).^27,28

While some studies focused on increasing specificity (to approximately 75%), this leads to an unacceptable loss of sensitivity (from 90% to 60%),²⁹ with 40% of pre-screened individuals who would become psychotic being eliminated from the study population. The addition of other biological markers (eg, salivary cortisol)³⁰ and use of learning health systems may be able to enhance these numbers (initial reports of specificity = 87% and sensitivity = 85%).^8,9 This is accomplished by integrating artificial and human intelligence measures of clinical (symptom and neurocognitive measures) and biological (eg, polygenetic risk scores; gray matter volume) variables.³¹ However, even if these results are replicated, more effective pre-screening measures will be required.

Identifying a suitable sample population for prevention program studies is clearly more complicated than for FEP studies, where one can usually identify many of those in the at-risk population by their first hospitalization for psychotic symptoms. The issues of false positives (eg, substance-induced psychosis) and negatives (eg, slow deterioration, prominent negative symptoms) are important concerns, but proportionately far less significant.

Prevention and FEP interventions

Once a study sample is constituted, 1 to 3 years of treatment interventions are initiated. Interventions for prevention programs typically include CBT directed at attenuated psychosis (eg, reframing or de-catastrophizing unusual thoughts and minimizing distress associated with unusual perceptions); case management to facilitate personal, educational, and vocational goals; and family therapy in single or multi-group formats to educate one’s support system about the risk state and to minimize adverse familial responses.¹⁴ Many programs also include supported education or employment services to promote reintegration in age-appropriate activities; group therapy focused on substance abuse and social skills training; cognitive remediation to ameliorate the cognitive dysfunction; and an array of pharmacologic interventions designed to delay or prevent transition to psychosis or to alleviate symptoms. While most interventions are similar, FEP programs have recently included peer support staff. This appears to instill hope in newly diagnosed patients, provide role models, and provide peer supporters an opportunity to use their experiences to help others and earn income.³²

The breadth and depth of these services are critical because retention in the program is highly dependent on participant engagement, which in turn is highly dependent on whether the program can help individuals get what they want (eg, friends, employment, education, more autonomy, physical health). The setting and atmosphere of the treatment program and the willingness/ability of staff to meet participants in the community are also important elements.^11,12 In this context, the Headspace community centers are having an impact far beyond Australia and may prove to be a particularly good model.¹³

Continue to: Assessing prevention and FEP interventions

The second generation of studies of prevention programs has not confirmed, let alone extended, the earlier findings and meta-analyses. A 2020 report concluded CBT was still the most promising intervention; it was more effective than control treatments at 12 and 18 months, although not at 6, 24, or 48 months.³³ This review included controlled, open-label, and naturalistic studies that assessed family therapy; omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids; integrated psychological therapy (a package of interventions that included family education, CBT, social skills training, and cognitive remediation); N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor modulators; mood stabilizers; and antipsychotics. In addition to the evidence supporting CBT, the results also indicated nonsignificant trends favoring family and integrated psychological therapy. Neither a 2019 Cochrane review³⁴ nor a 2020 “umbrella” assessment of 42 meta-analyses⁹ found convincing evidence for the efficacy of any program components.

While these disappointing findings are at least partly attributable to the methodological challenges described above and in the Figure, other factors may hinder establishing effective interventions. In contrast to FEP studies, those focused on prevention had a very ambitious agenda (eliminating psychosis) and tended to downplay more modest intermediate outcomes. These studies also tended to assess new ideas with small samples rather than pursue promising findings with larger multi-site studies focused on a group of interventions. The authors of a Cochrane review observed “There is the impression that in this whole area there is a triumph of hope over adversity. There is the repeated hope invested in another—often unique—study question and then a study of fewer than 100 participants are completed. This results in the set of comparisons reported here, all 9 of which are too underpowered to really highlight clear differences.”³⁴ To use a baseball analogy, it seems that investigators are “swinging for the fence” when a few singles are what’s really needed.

From the outset, the goals of FEP studies were more modest, largely ignoring the task of developing consensus definitions of recovery that require following patients for up to 5 to 10 years. Instead, they use intermediate endpoints based on adapting treatments that already appeared effective in patients with chronic mental disorders.³⁵ As a consequence, researchers examining FEP demonstrated clear, albeit limited, salutary effects using large multi-site trials and previously established outcome measures.^3,10,36 For instance, the Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode-Early Treatment Program (RAISE-ETP) study was a 2-year, multi-site RCT (N = 404) funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The investigators reported improved indices of social function (eg, quality of life; education and work participation) and total ratings of psychopathology and depression compared with treatment as usual. Furthermore, they established that DUP predicted treatment response.³⁵ The latter finding was underscored by improvement being limited to the 50% with <74 weeks DUP. Annual costs of the program per 1 standard deviation improvement in quality of life were approximately $1,000 for patients with <74 weeks DUP and $40,000 for those with >74 weeks DUP. Concurrent meta-analyses confirmed and extended these findings,¹⁶ showing higher remission rates; diminished relapses and hospital admissions; greater engagement in programming; greater involvement in work and school; improved quality of life; and other steps toward recovery. These studies were also able to establish a clear benefit of antipsychotic medications, particularly a high acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, which promoted adherence and decreased some adverse events³⁷; and early use of clozapine therapy, which improved remission rates and longer-term outcomes.³⁸ Other findings underscored the need to anticipate and address new problems associated with effective antipsychotic therapy (eg, antipsychotic response correlates with weight gain, a particularly intolerable adverse event for this age group).³⁹ Providing pre-emptive strategies such as exercise groups and nutritional education may be necessary to maintain adherence.

Limitations of FEP studies

The effect sizes in these FEP studies were small to medium on outcome measures tracking recovery and associated indicators (eg, global functioning, school/work participation, treatment engagement); the number needed to treat for each of these was >10. There is no clear evidence that recovery programs such as RAISE-ETP actually reduce longer-term disability. Most studies showed disability payments increased while clinical benefits tended to fade over time. In addition, by grouping interventions together, the studies made it difficult to identify effective vs ineffective treatments, let alone determine how best to personalize therapy for participants in future studies.

The next generation of FEP studies

While limited in scope, the results of the recent FEP studies justify a next generation of recovery interventions designed to address these shortcomings and optimize program outcomes.³⁹ Most previous FEP studies were conducted in community mental health center settings, thus eliminating the need to transition services developed in academia into the “real world.” The next generation of NIMH studies will be primarily conducted in analogous settings under the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET).⁴⁰ EPINET’s study design echoes that responsible for the stepwise successes in the late 20th century that produced cures for the deadliest childhood cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). This disease was successfully treated by modifying diverse evidence-based practices without relying on pharmacologic or other major treatment breakthroughs. Despite this, the effort yielded successful personalized interventions that were not obtainable for other severe childhood conditions.⁴⁰ EPINET hopes to automate much of these stepwise advances with a learning health system. This program relies on data routinely collected in clinical practice to drive the process of scientific discovery. Specifically, it determines the relationships between clinical features, biologic measures, treatment characteristics, and symptomatic and functional outcomes. EPINET aims to accelerate our understanding of biomarkers of psychosis risk and onset, as well as factors associated with recovery and cure. Dashboard displays of outcomes will allow for real-time comparisons within and across early intervention clinics. This in turn identifies performance gaps and drives continuous quality improvement.

Continue to: Barriers to optimizing program efficacy for both models

Unfortunately, there are stark differences between ALL and severe mental disorders that potentially jeopardize the achievement of these aims, despite the advances in data analytic abilities that drive the learning health system. Specifically, the heterogeneity of psychotic illnesses and the absence of reliable prognostic and modifiable risk markers (responsible for failed efforts to enhance treatment of serious mental illness over the last half century^1,2,41) are unlikely to be resolved by a learning health system. These measures are vital to determine whether specific interventions are effective, particularly given the absence of a randomized control group in the EPINET/learning health system design. Fortunately, however, the National Institutes for Health has recently initiated the Accelerating Medicines Partnership–Schizophrenia (AMP-SCZ). This approach seeks “promising biological markers that can help identify those at risk of developing schizophrenia as early as possible, track the progression of symptoms and other outcomes and ultimately define targets for treatment development.”⁴² The Box^{1,4,9,10,36,41,43-45} describes some of the challenges involved in identifying biomarkers of severe mental illness.

Box

A strength-based approach

The absence of sufficiently powered RCTs for prevention studies and the reliance on intermediate outcomes for FEP studies leaves unanswered whether such programs can effectively prevent chronic psychosis at a cost society is willing to pay. Still, substantial evidence indicates that outreach, long-acting injectable antipsychotics, early consideration of clozapine, family therapy, CBT for psychosis/attenuated psychosis, and services focused on competitive employment can preserve social and occupational functioning.^16,34 Until these broader questions are more definitively addressed, it seems reasonable to apply what we have learned (Table^{11,12,35,37-39,46}).

Simply avoiding the most divisive aspects of the medical model that inadvertently promote stigma and undercut self-confidence may help maintain patients’ willingness to learn how best to apply their strengths and manage their limitations.¹¹ The progression to enduring psychotic features (eg, fixed delusions) may reflect ongoing social isolation and alienation. A strength-based approach seeks first to establish common goals (eg, school, work, friends, family support, housing, leaving home) and then works to empower the patient to successfully reach those goals.³⁵ This typically involves giving them the opportunity to fail, avoiding criticism when they do, and focusing on these experiences as learning opportunities from which success can ultimately result.

It is difficult to offer all these services in a typical private practice setting. Instead, it may make more sense to use one of the hundreds of early intervention services programs in the United States.⁴⁶ If a psychiatric clinician is dedicated to working with this population, it may also be possible to establish ongoing relationships with primary care physicians, family and CBT therapists, family support services (eg, National Alliance on Mental Illness), caseworkers and employment counselors. In essence, a psychiatrist may be able re-create a multidisciplinary effort by taking advantage of the expertise of these various professionals. The challenge is to create a consistent message for patients and families in the absence of regular meetings with the clinical team, although the recent reliance on and improved sophistication of virtual meetings may help. Psychiatrists often play a critical role even when the patient is not prescribed medication, partly because they are most comfortable handling the risks and may have the most comprehensive understanding of the issues at play. When medications are appropriate and patients with FEP are willing to take them, early consideration of long-acting injectable antipsychotics and clozapine may provide better stabilization and diminish the risk of earlier and more frequent relapses.

Bottom Line

Early interventions for psychosis include the prevention model and the first-episode recovery model. It is difficult to assess, compare, and optimize the effectiveness of such programs. Current evidence supports a ‘strength-based’ approach focused on finding common ground between patients, their support system, and the treatment team.

Related Resources

• Early Assessment and Support Alliance. National Early Psychosis Directory. https://easacommunity.org/nationaldirectory.php
• Kane JM, Robinson DG, Schooler NR, et al. Comprehensive versus usual community care for first-episode psychosis: 2-year outcomes from the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 ;173(4):362-372

Drug Brand Name

Clozapine • Clozaril

When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve optimal outcomes after FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies, clinicians look for additional approaches to alleviate their patients’ symptoms. Recent research suggests that several “nontraditional” treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have promise for treatment-resistant depression.

In Part 1 of this article (Current Psychiatry, September 2021), we examined off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to treatment-resistant depression, including herbal/nutraceutical agents, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches. Importantly, some treatments also demonstrate adverse effects (Table^1-32). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied nontraditional treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Herbal/nutraceutical agents

This category encompasses a variety of commonly available “natural” options patients often ask about and at times self-prescribe. Examples evaluated in clinical trials include:

• vitamin D
• essential fatty acids (omega-3, omega-6)
• S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe)
• hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort)
• probiotics.

Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to depression, possibly by lowering serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine concentrations.^1-3

A meta-analysis of 3 prospective, observational studies (N = 8,815) found an elevated risk of affective disorders in patients with low vitamin D levels.⁴ In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis supported a potential role for vitamin D supplementation for patients with treatment-resistant depresssion.⁵

Toxicity can occur at levels >100 ng/mL, and resulting adverse effects may include weakness, fatigue, sleepiness, headache, loss of appetite, dry mouth, metallic taste, nausea, and vomiting. This vitamin can be considered as an adjunct to standard antidepressants, particularly in patients with treatment-resistant depression who have low vitamin D levels, but regular monitoring is necessary to avoid toxicity.

Essential fatty acids. Protein receptors embedded in lipid membranes and their binding affinities are influenced by omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Thus, essential fatty acids may benefit depression by maintaining membrane integrity and fluidity, as well as via their anti-inflammatory activity.

Continue to: Although results from...

Although results from controlled trials are mixed, a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjunctive nutraceuticals supported a potential role for essential fatty acids, primarily eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), by itself or in combination with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), with total EPA >60%.⁵ A second meta-analysis of 26 studies (N = 2,160) that considered only essential fatty acids concluded that EPA ≥60% at ≤1 g/d could benefit depression.⁶ Furthermore, omega-3 fatty acids may be helpful as an add-on agent for postpartum depression.⁷

Be aware that a diet rich in omega-6 greatly increases oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels in adipose tissue, potentially posing a cardiac risk factor. Clinicians need to be aware that self-prescribed use of essential fatty acids is common, and to ask about and monitor their patients’ use of these agents.

S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) is an intracellular amino acid and methyl donor. Among other actions, it is involved in the biosynthesis of hormones and neurotransmitters. There is promising but limited preliminary evidence of its efficacy and safety as a monotherapy or for antidepressant augmentation.⁸ For example, when compared with placebo for depressive symptoms in 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 878) ⁸:

• Five out of 6 earlier controlled studies reported SAMe IV (200 to 400 mg/d) or IM (45 to 50 mg/d) was more effective than placebo
• When the above studies were added to 14 subsequent studies for a meta-analysis, 12 of 19 RCTs reported that parenteral or oral SAMe was significantly more effective than placebo for depression (P < .05).

Overall, the safety and tolerability of SAMe are good. Common adverse effects include nausea, mild insomnia, dizziness, irritability, and anxiety. This is another compound widely available without a prescription and at times self-prescribed. It carries an acceptable risk/benefit balance, with decades of experience.

Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort) is widely prescribed for depression in China and Europe, typically in doses ranging from 500 to 900 mg/d. Its mechanism of action in depression may relate to inhibition of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine uptake from the synaptic cleft of these interconnecting neurotransmitter systems.

Continue to: A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials...

A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (N = 3,808) comparing St. John’s Wort with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reported comparable rates of response (pooled relative risk .983, 95% CI .924 to 1.042; P < .001) and remission (pooled relative risk 1.013, 95% CI .892 to 1.134; P < .001).⁹ Further, there were significantly lower discontinuation/dropout rates (pooled odds ratio .587, 95% CI .478 to 0.697; P < .001) for St. John’s Wort compared with the SSRIs.

Existing evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety is limited (studies ranged from 4 to 12 weeks), as is evidence for patients with more severe depression or high suicidality.

Serious drug interactions include the potential for serotonin syndrome when St. John’s Wort is combined with certain antidepressants, compromised efficacy of benzodiazepines and standard antidepressants, and severe skin reactions to sun exposure. In addition, St. John’s Wort may not be safe to use during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Because potential drug interactions can be serious and individuals often self-prescribe this agent, it is important to ask patients about their use of St. John’s Wort, and to be vigilant for such potential adverse interactions.

Probiotics. These agents produce neuroactive substances that act on the brain/gut axis. Preliminary evidence suggests that these “psychobiotics” confer mental health benefits.^10-12 Relative to other approaches, their low-risk profile make them an attractive option for some patients.

Anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies

Inflammation is linked to various medical and brain disorders. For example, patients with depression often demonstrate increased levels of peripheral blood inflammatory biomarkers (such as C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 and -17) that are known to alter norepinephrine, neuroendocrine (eg, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis), and microglia function in addition to neuro­plasticity. Thus, targeting inflammation may facilitate the development of novel antidepressants. In addition, these agents may benefit depression associated with comorbid autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 RCTs (N = 10,000) found 5 out of 6 anti-inflammatory agents improved depression.^13,14 In general, reported disadvantages of anti-inflammatories/immunosuppressants include the potential to block the antidepressant effect of some agents, the risk of opportunistic infections, and an increased risk of suicide.

Continue to: Statins

In a meta-analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind trials, 3 statins (lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin) significantly improved depression scores when used as an adjunctive therapy to fluoxetine and citalopram, compared with adjunctive placebo (N = 165, P < .001).¹⁵

Specific adverse effects of statins include headaches, muscle pain (rarely rhabdomyolysis), dizziness, rash, and liver damage. Statins also have the potential for adverse interactions with other medications. Given the limited efficacy literature on statins for depression and the potential for serious adverse effects, these agents probably should be limited to patients with treatment-resistant depression for whom a statin is indicated for a comorbid medical disorder, such as hypercholesteremia.

Neurosteroids

Brexanolone is FDA-approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is an IV formulation of the neuroactive steroid hormone allopregnanolone (a metabolite of progesterone), which acts as a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor. Unfortunately, the infusion needs to occur over a 60-hour period.

Ganaxolone is an oral analog formulation of allopregnanolone. In an uncontrolled, open-label pilot study, this medication was administered for 8 weeks as an adjunct to an adequately dosed antidepressant to 10 postmenopausal women with persistent MDD.¹⁶ Of the 9 women who completed the study, 4 (44%) improved significantly (P < .019) and the benefit was sustained for 2 additional weeks.¹⁶ Adverse effects of ganaxolone included dizziness in 60% of participants, and sleepiness and fatigue in all of them with twice-daily dosing. If the FDA approves ganaxolone, it would become an easier-to-administer option to brexanolone.

Zuranolone is an investigational agent being studied as a treatment for postpartum depression. In a double-blind RCT that evaluated 151 women with postpartum depression, those who took oral zuranolone, 30 mg daily at bedtime for 2 weeks, experienced significant reductions in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) scores compared with placebo (P < .003).¹⁷ Improvement in core depression symptom ratings was seen as early as Day 3 and persisted through Day 45.

Continue to: The most common...

The most common (≥5%) treatment-emergent adverse effects were somnolence (15%), headache (9%), dizziness (8%), upper respiratory tract infection (8%), diarrhea (6%), and sedation (5%). Two patients experienced a serious adverse event: one who received zuranolone (confusional state) and one who received placebo (pancreatitis). One patient discontinued zuranolone due to adverse effects vs no discontinuations among those who received placebo. The risk of taking zuranolone while breastfeeding is not known.

Device-based strategies

In addition to FDA-cleared approaches (eg, electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], vagus nerve stimulation [VNS], transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]), other devices have also demonstrated promising results.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) involves delivering weak electrical current to the cerebral cortex through small scalp electrodes to produce the following effects:

• anodal tDCS enhances cortical excitability
• cathodal tDCS reduces cortical excitability.

A typical protocol consists of delivering 1 to 2 mA over 20 minutes with scalp electrodes placed in different configurations based on the targeted symptom(s).

While tDCS has been evaluated as a treatment for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including bipolar depression, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia, most trials have looked at its use for treating depression. Results have been promising but mixed. For example, 1 meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (comprising 96 active and 80 sham tDCS courses) reported that active tDCS was superior to a sham procedure (Hedges’ g = 0.743) for symptoms of depression.¹⁸ By contrast, another meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (N = 200) did not find a significant difference between active and sham tDCS for response and remission rates.¹⁹ More recently, a group of experts created an evidence-based guideline using a systematic review of the controlled trial literature. These authors concluded there is “probable efficacy for anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episodes without drug resistance but probable inefficacy for drug-resistant major depressive episodes.”²⁰

Continue to: Adverse effects of tDCS...

Adverse effects of tDCS are typically mild but may include persistent skin lesions similar to burns; mania or hypomania; and one reported seizure in a pediatric patient.

Because various over-the-counter direct current stimulation devices are available for purchase at modest cost, clinicians should ask patients if they have been self-administering this treatment.

Chronotherapy strategies

Agomelatine combines serotonergic (5-HT2B and 5-HT2C antagonist) and melatonergic (MT1-MT2 agonist in the suprachiasmatic nucleus) actions that contribute to stabilization of circadian rhythms and subsequent improvement in sleep patterns. Agomelatine (n = 1,274) significantly lowered depression symptoms compared with placebo (n = 689) (standardized mean difference −0.26; P < 3.48×10^-11), but the clinical relevance was questionable.²¹ A recent review of the literature and expert opinion suggest this agent may also have efficacy for anhedonia; however, in placebo-controlled, relapse prevention studies, its long-term efficacy was not consistent.²²

Common adverse effects include anxiety; nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain; abnormal dreams and insomnia; dizziness; drowsiness and fatigue; and weight gain. Some reviewers have expressed concerns about agomelatine’s potential for hepatotoxicity and the need for repeated clinical laboratory tests. Although agomelatine is approved outside of the United States, limited efficacy data and the potential for serious adverse effects have precluded FDA approval of this agent.

Sleep deprivation as a treatment technique for depression has been developed over the past 50 years. With total sleep deprivation (TSD) over 1 cycle, patients stay awake for approximately 36 hours, from daytime until the next day’s evening. While 1 to 6 cycles can produce acute antidepressant effects, prompt relapse after sleep recovery is common.

Continue to: In a systematic review...

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 studies that included a total of 311 patients with bipolar depression²³:

• TSD plus medications resulted in a significant decrease in depressive symptoms at 1 week compared with medications alone
• higher response rates were maintained after 3 months with lithium.

Adverse effects commonly include general fatigue and headaches; possible switch into mania with bipolar depression; and rarely, seizures or other unexpected medical conditions (eg, acute coronary syndrome). Presently, this approach is limited to research laboratories with the appropriate sophistication to safely conduct such trials.

Other nontraditional strategies

Cardiovascular exercise, resistance training, mindfulness, and yoga have been shown to decrease severe depressive symptoms when used as adjuncts for patients with treatment-resistant depression, or as monotherapy to treat patients with milder depression.

Exercise. The significant benefits of exercise in various forms as treatment for mild to moderate depression are well described in the literature, but it is less clear if it is effective for treatment-resistant depression. A 2013 Cochrane report²⁴ (39 studies with 2,326 participants total) and 2 meta-analyses undertaken in 2015 (Kvam et al²⁵ included 23 studies with 977 participants, and Schuh et al²⁶ included 25 trials with 1,487 participants) reported that various types of exercise ameliorate depression of differing subtypes and severity, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Schuh et al²⁶ found that publication bias underestimated effect size. Also, not surprisingly, separate analysis of only higher-quality trials decreased effect size.^24-26 A meta-analysis that included tai chi and yoga in addition to aerobic exercise and strength training (25 trials with 2,083 participants) found low to moderate benefit for exercise and yoga.²⁷ Finally, a meta-analysis by Cramer et al²⁸ that included 12 RCTs (N = 619) supported the use of yoga plus controlled breathing techniques as an ancillary treatment for depression.

Two small exercise trials specifically evaluated patients with treatment-resistant depression.^29,30 Mota-Pereira et al²⁹ compared 22 participants who walked for 30 to 45 minutes, 5 days a week for 12 weeks in addition to pharmacotherapy with 11 patients who received pharmacotherapy only. Exercise improved all outcomes, including HDRS score (both compared to baseline and to the control group). Moreover, 26% of the exercise group went into remission. Pilu et al³⁰ evaluated strength training as an adjunctive treatment. Participants received 1 hour of strength training twice weekly for 8 months (n = 10), or pharmacotherapy only (n = 20). The adjunct strength training group had a statistically significant (P < .0001) improvement in HDRS scores at the end of the 8 months, whereas the control group did not (P < .28).

Continue to: Adverse effects...

Adverse effects of exercise are typically limited to sprains or strains; rarely, participants experience serious injuries.

Mindfulness-based interventions involve purposely paying attention in the present moment to enhance self-understanding and decrease anxiety about the future and regrets about the past, both of which complicate depression. A meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (N = 578) found this approach significantly reduced depression severity when used as an adjunctive therapy.³¹ There may be risks if mindfulness-based interventions are practiced incorrectly. For example, some reports have linked mindfulness-based interventions to psychotic episodes, meditation addiction, and antisocial or asocial behavior.³²

Bottom Line

Nonpharmacologic options for patients with treatment-resistant depression include herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, and devices. While research suggests some of these approaches are promising, clinicians need to carefully consider potential adverse effects, some of which may be serious.

Related Resources

• Kaur M, Sanches M. Experimental therapeutics in treatmentresistant major depressive disorder. J Exp Pharmacol. 2021;13:181-196.
• Janicak PG. What’s new in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(3):10-16.

Drug Brand Names

Atorvastatin • Lipitor
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Citalopram • Celexa
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lovastatin • Altoprev, Mevacor
Minocycline • Dynacin, Minocin
Simvastatin • Flolipid, Zocor

When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve optimal outcomes after FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies, clinicians look for additional approaches to alleviate their patients’ symptoms. Recent research suggests that several “nontraditional” treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have promise for treatment-resistant depression.

In Part 1 of this article (Current Psychiatry, September 2021), we examined off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to treatment-resistant depression, including herbal/nutraceutical agents, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches. Importantly, some treatments also demonstrate adverse effects (Table^1-32). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied nontraditional treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Herbal/nutraceutical agents

This category encompasses a variety of commonly available “natural” options patients often ask about and at times self-prescribe. Examples evaluated in clinical trials include:

• vitamin D
• essential fatty acids (omega-3, omega-6)
• S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe)
• hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort)
• probiotics.

Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to depression, possibly by lowering serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine concentrations.^1-3

A meta-analysis of 3 prospective, observational studies (N = 8,815) found an elevated risk of affective disorders in patients with low vitamin D levels.⁴ In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis supported a potential role for vitamin D supplementation for patients with treatment-resistant depresssion.⁵

Toxicity can occur at levels >100 ng/mL, and resulting adverse effects may include weakness, fatigue, sleepiness, headache, loss of appetite, dry mouth, metallic taste, nausea, and vomiting. This vitamin can be considered as an adjunct to standard antidepressants, particularly in patients with treatment-resistant depression who have low vitamin D levels, but regular monitoring is necessary to avoid toxicity.

Essential fatty acids. Protein receptors embedded in lipid membranes and their binding affinities are influenced by omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Thus, essential fatty acids may benefit depression by maintaining membrane integrity and fluidity, as well as via their anti-inflammatory activity.

Continue to: Although results from...

Although results from controlled trials are mixed, a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjunctive nutraceuticals supported a potential role for essential fatty acids, primarily eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), by itself or in combination with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), with total EPA >60%.⁵ A second meta-analysis of 26 studies (N = 2,160) that considered only essential fatty acids concluded that EPA ≥60% at ≤1 g/d could benefit depression.⁶ Furthermore, omega-3 fatty acids may be helpful as an add-on agent for postpartum depression.⁷

Be aware that a diet rich in omega-6 greatly increases oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels in adipose tissue, potentially posing a cardiac risk factor. Clinicians need to be aware that self-prescribed use of essential fatty acids is common, and to ask about and monitor their patients’ use of these agents.

S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) is an intracellular amino acid and methyl donor. Among other actions, it is involved in the biosynthesis of hormones and neurotransmitters. There is promising but limited preliminary evidence of its efficacy and safety as a monotherapy or for antidepressant augmentation.⁸ For example, when compared with placebo for depressive symptoms in 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 878) ⁸:

• Five out of 6 earlier controlled studies reported SAMe IV (200 to 400 mg/d) or IM (45 to 50 mg/d) was more effective than placebo
• When the above studies were added to 14 subsequent studies for a meta-analysis, 12 of 19 RCTs reported that parenteral or oral SAMe was significantly more effective than placebo for depression (P < .05).

Overall, the safety and tolerability of SAMe are good. Common adverse effects include nausea, mild insomnia, dizziness, irritability, and anxiety. This is another compound widely available without a prescription and at times self-prescribed. It carries an acceptable risk/benefit balance, with decades of experience.

Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort) is widely prescribed for depression in China and Europe, typically in doses ranging from 500 to 900 mg/d. Its mechanism of action in depression may relate to inhibition of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine uptake from the synaptic cleft of these interconnecting neurotransmitter systems.

Continue to: A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials...

A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (N = 3,808) comparing St. John’s Wort with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reported comparable rates of response (pooled relative risk .983, 95% CI .924 to 1.042; P < .001) and remission (pooled relative risk 1.013, 95% CI .892 to 1.134; P < .001).⁹ Further, there were significantly lower discontinuation/dropout rates (pooled odds ratio .587, 95% CI .478 to 0.697; P < .001) for St. John’s Wort compared with the SSRIs.

Existing evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety is limited (studies ranged from 4 to 12 weeks), as is evidence for patients with more severe depression or high suicidality.

Serious drug interactions include the potential for serotonin syndrome when St. John’s Wort is combined with certain antidepressants, compromised efficacy of benzodiazepines and standard antidepressants, and severe skin reactions to sun exposure. In addition, St. John’s Wort may not be safe to use during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Because potential drug interactions can be serious and individuals often self-prescribe this agent, it is important to ask patients about their use of St. John’s Wort, and to be vigilant for such potential adverse interactions.

Probiotics. These agents produce neuroactive substances that act on the brain/gut axis. Preliminary evidence suggests that these “psychobiotics” confer mental health benefits.^10-12 Relative to other approaches, their low-risk profile make them an attractive option for some patients.

Anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies

Inflammation is linked to various medical and brain disorders. For example, patients with depression often demonstrate increased levels of peripheral blood inflammatory biomarkers (such as C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 and -17) that are known to alter norepinephrine, neuroendocrine (eg, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis), and microglia function in addition to neuro­plasticity. Thus, targeting inflammation may facilitate the development of novel antidepressants. In addition, these agents may benefit depression associated with comorbid autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 RCTs (N = 10,000) found 5 out of 6 anti-inflammatory agents improved depression.^13,14 In general, reported disadvantages of anti-inflammatories/immunosuppressants include the potential to block the antidepressant effect of some agents, the risk of opportunistic infections, and an increased risk of suicide.

Continue to: Statins

In a meta-analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind trials, 3 statins (lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin) significantly improved depression scores when used as an adjunctive therapy to fluoxetine and citalopram, compared with adjunctive placebo (N = 165, P < .001).¹⁵

Specific adverse effects of statins include headaches, muscle pain (rarely rhabdomyolysis), dizziness, rash, and liver damage. Statins also have the potential for adverse interactions with other medications. Given the limited efficacy literature on statins for depression and the potential for serious adverse effects, these agents probably should be limited to patients with treatment-resistant depression for whom a statin is indicated for a comorbid medical disorder, such as hypercholesteremia.

Neurosteroids

Brexanolone is FDA-approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is an IV formulation of the neuroactive steroid hormone allopregnanolone (a metabolite of progesterone), which acts as a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor. Unfortunately, the infusion needs to occur over a 60-hour period.

Ganaxolone is an oral analog formulation of allopregnanolone. In an uncontrolled, open-label pilot study, this medication was administered for 8 weeks as an adjunct to an adequately dosed antidepressant to 10 postmenopausal women with persistent MDD.¹⁶ Of the 9 women who completed the study, 4 (44%) improved significantly (P < .019) and the benefit was sustained for 2 additional weeks.¹⁶ Adverse effects of ganaxolone included dizziness in 60% of participants, and sleepiness and fatigue in all of them with twice-daily dosing. If the FDA approves ganaxolone, it would become an easier-to-administer option to brexanolone.

Zuranolone is an investigational agent being studied as a treatment for postpartum depression. In a double-blind RCT that evaluated 151 women with postpartum depression, those who took oral zuranolone, 30 mg daily at bedtime for 2 weeks, experienced significant reductions in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) scores compared with placebo (P < .003).¹⁷ Improvement in core depression symptom ratings was seen as early as Day 3 and persisted through Day 45.

Continue to: The most common...

The most common (≥5%) treatment-emergent adverse effects were somnolence (15%), headache (9%), dizziness (8%), upper respiratory tract infection (8%), diarrhea (6%), and sedation (5%). Two patients experienced a serious adverse event: one who received zuranolone (confusional state) and one who received placebo (pancreatitis). One patient discontinued zuranolone due to adverse effects vs no discontinuations among those who received placebo. The risk of taking zuranolone while breastfeeding is not known.

Device-based strategies

In addition to FDA-cleared approaches (eg, electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], vagus nerve stimulation [VNS], transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]), other devices have also demonstrated promising results.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) involves delivering weak electrical current to the cerebral cortex through small scalp electrodes to produce the following effects:

• anodal tDCS enhances cortical excitability
• cathodal tDCS reduces cortical excitability.

A typical protocol consists of delivering 1 to 2 mA over 20 minutes with scalp electrodes placed in different configurations based on the targeted symptom(s).

While tDCS has been evaluated as a treatment for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including bipolar depression, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia, most trials have looked at its use for treating depression. Results have been promising but mixed. For example, 1 meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (comprising 96 active and 80 sham tDCS courses) reported that active tDCS was superior to a sham procedure (Hedges’ g = 0.743) for symptoms of depression.¹⁸ By contrast, another meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (N = 200) did not find a significant difference between active and sham tDCS for response and remission rates.¹⁹ More recently, a group of experts created an evidence-based guideline using a systematic review of the controlled trial literature. These authors concluded there is “probable efficacy for anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episodes without drug resistance but probable inefficacy for drug-resistant major depressive episodes.”²⁰

Continue to: Adverse effects of tDCS...

Adverse effects of tDCS are typically mild but may include persistent skin lesions similar to burns; mania or hypomania; and one reported seizure in a pediatric patient.

Because various over-the-counter direct current stimulation devices are available for purchase at modest cost, clinicians should ask patients if they have been self-administering this treatment.

Chronotherapy strategies

Agomelatine combines serotonergic (5-HT2B and 5-HT2C antagonist) and melatonergic (MT1-MT2 agonist in the suprachiasmatic nucleus) actions that contribute to stabilization of circadian rhythms and subsequent improvement in sleep patterns. Agomelatine (n = 1,274) significantly lowered depression symptoms compared with placebo (n = 689) (standardized mean difference −0.26; P < 3.48×10^-11), but the clinical relevance was questionable.²¹ A recent review of the literature and expert opinion suggest this agent may also have efficacy for anhedonia; however, in placebo-controlled, relapse prevention studies, its long-term efficacy was not consistent.²²

Common adverse effects include anxiety; nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain; abnormal dreams and insomnia; dizziness; drowsiness and fatigue; and weight gain. Some reviewers have expressed concerns about agomelatine’s potential for hepatotoxicity and the need for repeated clinical laboratory tests. Although agomelatine is approved outside of the United States, limited efficacy data and the potential for serious adverse effects have precluded FDA approval of this agent.

Sleep deprivation as a treatment technique for depression has been developed over the past 50 years. With total sleep deprivation (TSD) over 1 cycle, patients stay awake for approximately 36 hours, from daytime until the next day’s evening. While 1 to 6 cycles can produce acute antidepressant effects, prompt relapse after sleep recovery is common.

Continue to: In a systematic review...

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 studies that included a total of 311 patients with bipolar depression²³:

• TSD plus medications resulted in a significant decrease in depressive symptoms at 1 week compared with medications alone
• higher response rates were maintained after 3 months with lithium.

Adverse effects commonly include general fatigue and headaches; possible switch into mania with bipolar depression; and rarely, seizures or other unexpected medical conditions (eg, acute coronary syndrome). Presently, this approach is limited to research laboratories with the appropriate sophistication to safely conduct such trials.

Other nontraditional strategies

Cardiovascular exercise, resistance training, mindfulness, and yoga have been shown to decrease severe depressive symptoms when used as adjuncts for patients with treatment-resistant depression, or as monotherapy to treat patients with milder depression.

Exercise. The significant benefits of exercise in various forms as treatment for mild to moderate depression are well described in the literature, but it is less clear if it is effective for treatment-resistant depression. A 2013 Cochrane report²⁴ (39 studies with 2,326 participants total) and 2 meta-analyses undertaken in 2015 (Kvam et al²⁵ included 23 studies with 977 participants, and Schuh et al²⁶ included 25 trials with 1,487 participants) reported that various types of exercise ameliorate depression of differing subtypes and severity, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Schuh et al²⁶ found that publication bias underestimated effect size. Also, not surprisingly, separate analysis of only higher-quality trials decreased effect size.^24-26 A meta-analysis that included tai chi and yoga in addition to aerobic exercise and strength training (25 trials with 2,083 participants) found low to moderate benefit for exercise and yoga.²⁷ Finally, a meta-analysis by Cramer et al²⁸ that included 12 RCTs (N = 619) supported the use of yoga plus controlled breathing techniques as an ancillary treatment for depression.

Two small exercise trials specifically evaluated patients with treatment-resistant depression.^29,30 Mota-Pereira et al²⁹ compared 22 participants who walked for 30 to 45 minutes, 5 days a week for 12 weeks in addition to pharmacotherapy with 11 patients who received pharmacotherapy only. Exercise improved all outcomes, including HDRS score (both compared to baseline and to the control group). Moreover, 26% of the exercise group went into remission. Pilu et al³⁰ evaluated strength training as an adjunctive treatment. Participants received 1 hour of strength training twice weekly for 8 months (n = 10), or pharmacotherapy only (n = 20). The adjunct strength training group had a statistically significant (P < .0001) improvement in HDRS scores at the end of the 8 months, whereas the control group did not (P < .28).

Continue to: Adverse effects...

Adverse effects of exercise are typically limited to sprains or strains; rarely, participants experience serious injuries.

Mindfulness-based interventions involve purposely paying attention in the present moment to enhance self-understanding and decrease anxiety about the future and regrets about the past, both of which complicate depression. A meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (N = 578) found this approach significantly reduced depression severity when used as an adjunctive therapy.³¹ There may be risks if mindfulness-based interventions are practiced incorrectly. For example, some reports have linked mindfulness-based interventions to psychotic episodes, meditation addiction, and antisocial or asocial behavior.³²

Bottom Line

Nonpharmacologic options for patients with treatment-resistant depression include herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, and devices. While research suggests some of these approaches are promising, clinicians need to carefully consider potential adverse effects, some of which may be serious.

Related Resources

• Kaur M, Sanches M. Experimental therapeutics in treatmentresistant major depressive disorder. J Exp Pharmacol. 2021;13:181-196.
• Janicak PG. What’s new in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(3):10-16.

Drug Brand Names

Atorvastatin • Lipitor
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Citalopram • Celexa
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lovastatin • Altoprev, Mevacor
Minocycline • Dynacin, Minocin
Simvastatin • Flolipid, Zocor

When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve optimal outcomes after FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies, clinicians look for additional approaches to alleviate their patients’ symptoms. Recent research suggests that several “nontraditional” treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have promise for treatment-resistant depression.

In Part 1 of this article (Current Psychiatry, September 2021), we examined off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to treatment-resistant depression, including herbal/nutraceutical agents, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches. Importantly, some treatments also demonstrate adverse effects (Table^1-32). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied nontraditional treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Herbal/nutraceutical agents

This category encompasses a variety of commonly available “natural” options patients often ask about and at times self-prescribe. Examples evaluated in clinical trials include:

• vitamin D
• essential fatty acids (omega-3, omega-6)
• S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe)
• hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort)
• probiotics.

Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to depression, possibly by lowering serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine concentrations.^1-3

A meta-analysis of 3 prospective, observational studies (N = 8,815) found an elevated risk of affective disorders in patients with low vitamin D levels.⁴ In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis supported a potential role for vitamin D supplementation for patients with treatment-resistant depresssion.⁵

Toxicity can occur at levels >100 ng/mL, and resulting adverse effects may include weakness, fatigue, sleepiness, headache, loss of appetite, dry mouth, metallic taste, nausea, and vomiting. This vitamin can be considered as an adjunct to standard antidepressants, particularly in patients with treatment-resistant depression who have low vitamin D levels, but regular monitoring is necessary to avoid toxicity.

Essential fatty acids. Protein receptors embedded in lipid membranes and their binding affinities are influenced by omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Thus, essential fatty acids may benefit depression by maintaining membrane integrity and fluidity, as well as via their anti-inflammatory activity.

Continue to: Although results from...

Although results from controlled trials are mixed, a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjunctive nutraceuticals supported a potential role for essential fatty acids, primarily eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), by itself or in combination with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), with total EPA >60%.⁵ A second meta-analysis of 26 studies (N = 2,160) that considered only essential fatty acids concluded that EPA ≥60% at ≤1 g/d could benefit depression.⁶ Furthermore, omega-3 fatty acids may be helpful as an add-on agent for postpartum depression.⁷

Be aware that a diet rich in omega-6 greatly increases oxidized low-density lipoprotein levels in adipose tissue, potentially posing a cardiac risk factor. Clinicians need to be aware that self-prescribed use of essential fatty acids is common, and to ask about and monitor their patients’ use of these agents.

S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) is an intracellular amino acid and methyl donor. Among other actions, it is involved in the biosynthesis of hormones and neurotransmitters. There is promising but limited preliminary evidence of its efficacy and safety as a monotherapy or for antidepressant augmentation.⁸ For example, when compared with placebo for depressive symptoms in 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 878) ⁸:

• Five out of 6 earlier controlled studies reported SAMe IV (200 to 400 mg/d) or IM (45 to 50 mg/d) was more effective than placebo
• When the above studies were added to 14 subsequent studies for a meta-analysis, 12 of 19 RCTs reported that parenteral or oral SAMe was significantly more effective than placebo for depression (P < .05).

Overall, the safety and tolerability of SAMe are good. Common adverse effects include nausea, mild insomnia, dizziness, irritability, and anxiety. This is another compound widely available without a prescription and at times self-prescribed. It carries an acceptable risk/benefit balance, with decades of experience.

Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort) is widely prescribed for depression in China and Europe, typically in doses ranging from 500 to 900 mg/d. Its mechanism of action in depression may relate to inhibition of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine uptake from the synaptic cleft of these interconnecting neurotransmitter systems.

Continue to: A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials...

A meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (N = 3,808) comparing St. John’s Wort with various selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) reported comparable rates of response (pooled relative risk .983, 95% CI .924 to 1.042; P < .001) and remission (pooled relative risk 1.013, 95% CI .892 to 1.134; P < .001).⁹ Further, there were significantly lower discontinuation/dropout rates (pooled odds ratio .587, 95% CI .478 to 0.697; P < .001) for St. John’s Wort compared with the SSRIs.

Existing evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety is limited (studies ranged from 4 to 12 weeks), as is evidence for patients with more severe depression or high suicidality.

Serious drug interactions include the potential for serotonin syndrome when St. John’s Wort is combined with certain antidepressants, compromised efficacy of benzodiazepines and standard antidepressants, and severe skin reactions to sun exposure. In addition, St. John’s Wort may not be safe to use during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. Because potential drug interactions can be serious and individuals often self-prescribe this agent, it is important to ask patients about their use of St. John’s Wort, and to be vigilant for such potential adverse interactions.

Probiotics. These agents produce neuroactive substances that act on the brain/gut axis. Preliminary evidence suggests that these “psychobiotics” confer mental health benefits.^10-12 Relative to other approaches, their low-risk profile make them an attractive option for some patients.

Anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies

Inflammation is linked to various medical and brain disorders. For example, patients with depression often demonstrate increased levels of peripheral blood inflammatory biomarkers (such as C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 and -17) that are known to alter norepinephrine, neuroendocrine (eg, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis), and microglia function in addition to neuro­plasticity. Thus, targeting inflammation may facilitate the development of novel antidepressants. In addition, these agents may benefit depression associated with comorbid autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 RCTs (N = 10,000) found 5 out of 6 anti-inflammatory agents improved depression.^13,14 In general, reported disadvantages of anti-inflammatories/immunosuppressants include the potential to block the antidepressant effect of some agents, the risk of opportunistic infections, and an increased risk of suicide.

Continue to: Statins

In a meta-analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind trials, 3 statins (lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin) significantly improved depression scores when used as an adjunctive therapy to fluoxetine and citalopram, compared with adjunctive placebo (N = 165, P < .001).¹⁵

Specific adverse effects of statins include headaches, muscle pain (rarely rhabdomyolysis), dizziness, rash, and liver damage. Statins also have the potential for adverse interactions with other medications. Given the limited efficacy literature on statins for depression and the potential for serious adverse effects, these agents probably should be limited to patients with treatment-resistant depression for whom a statin is indicated for a comorbid medical disorder, such as hypercholesteremia.

Neurosteroids

Brexanolone is FDA-approved for the treatment of postpartum depression. It is an IV formulation of the neuroactive steroid hormone allopregnanolone (a metabolite of progesterone), which acts as a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor. Unfortunately, the infusion needs to occur over a 60-hour period.

Ganaxolone is an oral analog formulation of allopregnanolone. In an uncontrolled, open-label pilot study, this medication was administered for 8 weeks as an adjunct to an adequately dosed antidepressant to 10 postmenopausal women with persistent MDD.¹⁶ Of the 9 women who completed the study, 4 (44%) improved significantly (P < .019) and the benefit was sustained for 2 additional weeks.¹⁶ Adverse effects of ganaxolone included dizziness in 60% of participants, and sleepiness and fatigue in all of them with twice-daily dosing. If the FDA approves ganaxolone, it would become an easier-to-administer option to brexanolone.

Zuranolone is an investigational agent being studied as a treatment for postpartum depression. In a double-blind RCT that evaluated 151 women with postpartum depression, those who took oral zuranolone, 30 mg daily at bedtime for 2 weeks, experienced significant reductions in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) scores compared with placebo (P < .003).¹⁷ Improvement in core depression symptom ratings was seen as early as Day 3 and persisted through Day 45.

Continue to: The most common...

The most common (≥5%) treatment-emergent adverse effects were somnolence (15%), headache (9%), dizziness (8%), upper respiratory tract infection (8%), diarrhea (6%), and sedation (5%). Two patients experienced a serious adverse event: one who received zuranolone (confusional state) and one who received placebo (pancreatitis). One patient discontinued zuranolone due to adverse effects vs no discontinuations among those who received placebo. The risk of taking zuranolone while breastfeeding is not known.

Device-based strategies

In addition to FDA-cleared approaches (eg, electroconvulsive therapy [ECT], vagus nerve stimulation [VNS], transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS]), other devices have also demonstrated promising results.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) involves delivering weak electrical current to the cerebral cortex through small scalp electrodes to produce the following effects:

• anodal tDCS enhances cortical excitability
• cathodal tDCS reduces cortical excitability.

A typical protocol consists of delivering 1 to 2 mA over 20 minutes with scalp electrodes placed in different configurations based on the targeted symptom(s).

While tDCS has been evaluated as a treatment for various neuropsychiatric disorders, including bipolar depression, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia, most trials have looked at its use for treating depression. Results have been promising but mixed. For example, 1 meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (comprising 96 active and 80 sham tDCS courses) reported that active tDCS was superior to a sham procedure (Hedges’ g = 0.743) for symptoms of depression.¹⁸ By contrast, another meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (N = 200) did not find a significant difference between active and sham tDCS for response and remission rates.¹⁹ More recently, a group of experts created an evidence-based guideline using a systematic review of the controlled trial literature. These authors concluded there is “probable efficacy for anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episodes without drug resistance but probable inefficacy for drug-resistant major depressive episodes.”²⁰

Continue to: Adverse effects of tDCS...

Adverse effects of tDCS are typically mild but may include persistent skin lesions similar to burns; mania or hypomania; and one reported seizure in a pediatric patient.

Because various over-the-counter direct current stimulation devices are available for purchase at modest cost, clinicians should ask patients if they have been self-administering this treatment.

Chronotherapy strategies

Agomelatine combines serotonergic (5-HT2B and 5-HT2C antagonist) and melatonergic (MT1-MT2 agonist in the suprachiasmatic nucleus) actions that contribute to stabilization of circadian rhythms and subsequent improvement in sleep patterns. Agomelatine (n = 1,274) significantly lowered depression symptoms compared with placebo (n = 689) (standardized mean difference −0.26; P < 3.48×10^-11), but the clinical relevance was questionable.²¹ A recent review of the literature and expert opinion suggest this agent may also have efficacy for anhedonia; however, in placebo-controlled, relapse prevention studies, its long-term efficacy was not consistent.²²

Common adverse effects include anxiety; nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain; abnormal dreams and insomnia; dizziness; drowsiness and fatigue; and weight gain. Some reviewers have expressed concerns about agomelatine’s potential for hepatotoxicity and the need for repeated clinical laboratory tests. Although agomelatine is approved outside of the United States, limited efficacy data and the potential for serious adverse effects have precluded FDA approval of this agent.

Sleep deprivation as a treatment technique for depression has been developed over the past 50 years. With total sleep deprivation (TSD) over 1 cycle, patients stay awake for approximately 36 hours, from daytime until the next day’s evening. While 1 to 6 cycles can produce acute antidepressant effects, prompt relapse after sleep recovery is common.

Continue to: In a systematic review...

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 studies that included a total of 311 patients with bipolar depression²³:

• TSD plus medications resulted in a significant decrease in depressive symptoms at 1 week compared with medications alone
• higher response rates were maintained after 3 months with lithium.

Adverse effects commonly include general fatigue and headaches; possible switch into mania with bipolar depression; and rarely, seizures or other unexpected medical conditions (eg, acute coronary syndrome). Presently, this approach is limited to research laboratories with the appropriate sophistication to safely conduct such trials.

Other nontraditional strategies

Cardiovascular exercise, resistance training, mindfulness, and yoga have been shown to decrease severe depressive symptoms when used as adjuncts for patients with treatment-resistant depression, or as monotherapy to treat patients with milder depression.

Exercise. The significant benefits of exercise in various forms as treatment for mild to moderate depression are well described in the literature, but it is less clear if it is effective for treatment-resistant depression. A 2013 Cochrane report²⁴ (39 studies with 2,326 participants total) and 2 meta-analyses undertaken in 2015 (Kvam et al²⁵ included 23 studies with 977 participants, and Schuh et al²⁶ included 25 trials with 1,487 participants) reported that various types of exercise ameliorate depression of differing subtypes and severity, with effect sizes ranging from small to large. Schuh et al²⁶ found that publication bias underestimated effect size. Also, not surprisingly, separate analysis of only higher-quality trials decreased effect size.^24-26 A meta-analysis that included tai chi and yoga in addition to aerobic exercise and strength training (25 trials with 2,083 participants) found low to moderate benefit for exercise and yoga.²⁷ Finally, a meta-analysis by Cramer et al²⁸ that included 12 RCTs (N = 619) supported the use of yoga plus controlled breathing techniques as an ancillary treatment for depression.

Two small exercise trials specifically evaluated patients with treatment-resistant depression.^29,30 Mota-Pereira et al²⁹ compared 22 participants who walked for 30 to 45 minutes, 5 days a week for 12 weeks in addition to pharmacotherapy with 11 patients who received pharmacotherapy only. Exercise improved all outcomes, including HDRS score (both compared to baseline and to the control group). Moreover, 26% of the exercise group went into remission. Pilu et al³⁰ evaluated strength training as an adjunctive treatment. Participants received 1 hour of strength training twice weekly for 8 months (n = 10), or pharmacotherapy only (n = 20). The adjunct strength training group had a statistically significant (P < .0001) improvement in HDRS scores at the end of the 8 months, whereas the control group did not (P < .28).

Continue to: Adverse effects...

Adverse effects of exercise are typically limited to sprains or strains; rarely, participants experience serious injuries.

Mindfulness-based interventions involve purposely paying attention in the present moment to enhance self-understanding and decrease anxiety about the future and regrets about the past, both of which complicate depression. A meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (N = 578) found this approach significantly reduced depression severity when used as an adjunctive therapy.³¹ There may be risks if mindfulness-based interventions are practiced incorrectly. For example, some reports have linked mindfulness-based interventions to psychotic episodes, meditation addiction, and antisocial or asocial behavior.³²

Bottom Line

Nonpharmacologic options for patients with treatment-resistant depression include herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, and devices. While research suggests some of these approaches are promising, clinicians need to carefully consider potential adverse effects, some of which may be serious.

Related Resources

• Kaur M, Sanches M. Experimental therapeutics in treatmentresistant major depressive disorder. J Exp Pharmacol. 2021;13:181-196.
• Janicak PG. What’s new in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(3):10-16.

Drug Brand Names

Atorvastatin • Lipitor
Brexanolone • Zulresso
Citalopram • Celexa
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lovastatin • Altoprev, Mevacor
Minocycline • Dynacin, Minocin
Simvastatin • Flolipid, Zocor

It’s an all-too-common news item: The crash and burn of yet another politician, celebrity, or prominent individual. It’s painful to watch someone who spent years to achieve the status of a household name suddenly, and often ignominiously, lose it all. This is the equivalent of a human train wreck.

Some adversaries (who doesn’t have a few?) will rejoice or express schadenfreude, but many people will experience some empathy or sorrow as they witness the implosion of a celebrity. Fans, followers, or voters may grieve as the object of their respect and adulation falls off the high pedestal of fame. What starts as a drip-drip of rumors and innuendos soon eventuates in a denouement. And with time, as additional public figures fall from grace, the previous casualties will become mere footnotes in the annals of human self-destruction. Their loss of face, shame, and wrenching emotional and financial toll will be forgotten from the public’s collective memory, but the embers of bitterness and regret will continue to smolder in the hearts and souls of those who inadvertently contributed to their own social or professional demise due to a mistake, error of judgement, or plain old-fashioned stupidity. For the fallen, forgiveness and redemption are hard to come by.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen over centuries, and they include historical figures such as kings, military leaders, religious leaders, and politicians. The fall from grace in the past often led to executions, excommunication, or persecution. In the contemporary era, the oppressive “cancel culture” will mercilessly discard anyone, regardless of stature, after only 1 “wrong” tweet. In the digital age of mass communication, being “cancelled” is a frequent fall from grace and is the equivalent of being ostracized from millions of denizens on social media, which can spell doom for one’s career and social interactions.

The list of those whose careers ended calamitously include many familiar names, but I will only cite their prominent roles (you can easily guess their names!):

• emperors, kings, presidents, prime ministers, and political demagogues
• congressmen, senators, governors, and mayors
• Nobel Laureates (a Medicine and Physiology winner went to prison for pedophilia, and a Peace Prize winner fell from grace for supporting a military dictatorship)
• Cardinals and bishops in various countries (for sexual or financial crimes)
• billionaires, often for erratic personal lives
• sport legends, including decorated athletes and coaches of college and professional teams
• world chess masters
• Wall Street moguls
• Hollywood celebrities, including actors and directors, some with Oscars and related recognitions
• television news anchors and commentators
• comedians of various stripes
• CEOs of major media companies
• talk show hosts watched by millions
• celebrated musicians (classical, pop, rap, or blues)
• university presidents
• others in esteemed positions (including some psychiatrists).

Why is this so common?

From a psychiatric perspective, the most compelling question is why is the fall from grace so common? What are the transgressions, flaws, and shortcomings of successful individuals whose reputations end up smeared or who lose everything they worked for? Why do high achievers, talented and successful, at the apogee of fame and fortune, lose it all with nary a chance for recovery

The answer is all too obvious: human frailties. Successful persons are by no means immune from poor judgment. They can be as error-prone as the rest of us mortals. Having robust cognitive intelligence can be undermined by stunted emotional intelligence or poor interpersonal or social judgment. In Freudian terms, famous people who crash and burn may have a “Swiss cheese superego” that allows their id to viciously weaken their ego. From a neuroscience perspective, their limbic system conquers their cortical circuitry with relentless innate forces, including:

• fervent sexual appetite, compounded by the cockiness that comes with fame
• felonious paraphilias, such as pedophilia or public indecency
• intense greed that clouds one’s judgment (a trait exhibited by some ultra-rich persons)
• narcissism, either inborn or acquired with unexpected success and power
• impulsivity and recklessness, with injurious words or actions.
• substance use.

Consideration should be given to psychopathology. Some may have a personality disorder. Others may be both blessed and cursed with hypomania that leads to high achievement but also to foolish and impulsive behavior.¹ Some may have maladaptive social skills seen in autism spectrum disorder (recently, a very prominent and innovative billionaire casually announced that he has autistic traits). And others my have limited coping skills to deal with fame and fortune and unwittingly end up shooting themselves in both feet.

Continue to: But perhaps the most common thread...

But perhaps the most common thread across all the tragic cases of self-destruction is hubris. As humans become rich, famous, or powerful, they gradually develop the fallacious belief that they can get away with anything because they have masses of fans and followers who “love them no matter what.” This dangerous “acquired narcissism” is an unfortunate byproduct of success. Humility is rare among celebrities and powerful leaders. Modest celebrities almost never fall from grace and are endowed with an innate antidote to self-aggrandizement. A few years ago, I wrote an editorial in Current Psychiatry titled “Should psychiatry list hubris in DSM-V?”² While hubris is not regarded as a psychiatric disorder, it is certainly an affliction that often ends badly. The mental repercussions can include depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, despair, and even falling on one’s sword. Hubris can be a fatal flaw with devastating consequences to one’s career. Perhaps those who aspire to become a celebrity should receive mentorship about hubris as a hazard of fame and fortune, when they are still in the “rising star” stage of their lives.

In contemporary society, with the era of social media and toxic political zeitgeist, there are many inadvertent “opportunities” to stumble and ruin one’s career by uttering an “unacceptable” word or dispatching an “offensive tweet” or posting a politically incorrect photo. And even if one is currently careful, there are now social media detectives and fact-finding “archeologists” who can excavate and disseminate the faux pas, peccadillos, or misdeeds from a prominent person’s immature youth, which will destroy a famous person overnight. That can be a nightmare for anyone who becomes a bona fide celebrity after years of working hard to get there.

High achievers: Beware!

It’s an all-too-common news item: The crash and burn of yet another politician, celebrity, or prominent individual. It’s painful to watch someone who spent years to achieve the status of a household name suddenly, and often ignominiously, lose it all. This is the equivalent of a human train wreck.

Some adversaries (who doesn’t have a few?) will rejoice or express schadenfreude, but many people will experience some empathy or sorrow as they witness the implosion of a celebrity. Fans, followers, or voters may grieve as the object of their respect and adulation falls off the high pedestal of fame. What starts as a drip-drip of rumors and innuendos soon eventuates in a denouement. And with time, as additional public figures fall from grace, the previous casualties will become mere footnotes in the annals of human self-destruction. Their loss of face, shame, and wrenching emotional and financial toll will be forgotten from the public’s collective memory, but the embers of bitterness and regret will continue to smolder in the hearts and souls of those who inadvertently contributed to their own social or professional demise due to a mistake, error of judgement, or plain old-fashioned stupidity. For the fallen, forgiveness and redemption are hard to come by.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen over centuries, and they include historical figures such as kings, military leaders, religious leaders, and politicians. The fall from grace in the past often led to executions, excommunication, or persecution. In the contemporary era, the oppressive “cancel culture” will mercilessly discard anyone, regardless of stature, after only 1 “wrong” tweet. In the digital age of mass communication, being “cancelled” is a frequent fall from grace and is the equivalent of being ostracized from millions of denizens on social media, which can spell doom for one’s career and social interactions.

The list of those whose careers ended calamitously include many familiar names, but I will only cite their prominent roles (you can easily guess their names!):

• emperors, kings, presidents, prime ministers, and political demagogues
• congressmen, senators, governors, and mayors
• Nobel Laureates (a Medicine and Physiology winner went to prison for pedophilia, and a Peace Prize winner fell from grace for supporting a military dictatorship)
• Cardinals and bishops in various countries (for sexual or financial crimes)
• billionaires, often for erratic personal lives
• sport legends, including decorated athletes and coaches of college and professional teams
• world chess masters
• Wall Street moguls
• Hollywood celebrities, including actors and directors, some with Oscars and related recognitions
• television news anchors and commentators
• comedians of various stripes
• CEOs of major media companies
• talk show hosts watched by millions
• celebrated musicians (classical, pop, rap, or blues)
• university presidents
• others in esteemed positions (including some psychiatrists).

Why is this so common?

From a psychiatric perspective, the most compelling question is why is the fall from grace so common? What are the transgressions, flaws, and shortcomings of successful individuals whose reputations end up smeared or who lose everything they worked for? Why do high achievers, talented and successful, at the apogee of fame and fortune, lose it all with nary a chance for recovery

The answer is all too obvious: human frailties. Successful persons are by no means immune from poor judgment. They can be as error-prone as the rest of us mortals. Having robust cognitive intelligence can be undermined by stunted emotional intelligence or poor interpersonal or social judgment. In Freudian terms, famous people who crash and burn may have a “Swiss cheese superego” that allows their id to viciously weaken their ego. From a neuroscience perspective, their limbic system conquers their cortical circuitry with relentless innate forces, including:

• fervent sexual appetite, compounded by the cockiness that comes with fame
• felonious paraphilias, such as pedophilia or public indecency
• intense greed that clouds one’s judgment (a trait exhibited by some ultra-rich persons)
• narcissism, either inborn or acquired with unexpected success and power
• impulsivity and recklessness, with injurious words or actions.
• substance use.

Consideration should be given to psychopathology. Some may have a personality disorder. Others may be both blessed and cursed with hypomania that leads to high achievement but also to foolish and impulsive behavior.¹ Some may have maladaptive social skills seen in autism spectrum disorder (recently, a very prominent and innovative billionaire casually announced that he has autistic traits). And others my have limited coping skills to deal with fame and fortune and unwittingly end up shooting themselves in both feet.

Continue to: But perhaps the most common thread...

But perhaps the most common thread across all the tragic cases of self-destruction is hubris. As humans become rich, famous, or powerful, they gradually develop the fallacious belief that they can get away with anything because they have masses of fans and followers who “love them no matter what.” This dangerous “acquired narcissism” is an unfortunate byproduct of success. Humility is rare among celebrities and powerful leaders. Modest celebrities almost never fall from grace and are endowed with an innate antidote to self-aggrandizement. A few years ago, I wrote an editorial in Current Psychiatry titled “Should psychiatry list hubris in DSM-V?”² While hubris is not regarded as a psychiatric disorder, it is certainly an affliction that often ends badly. The mental repercussions can include depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, despair, and even falling on one’s sword. Hubris can be a fatal flaw with devastating consequences to one’s career. Perhaps those who aspire to become a celebrity should receive mentorship about hubris as a hazard of fame and fortune, when they are still in the “rising star” stage of their lives.

In contemporary society, with the era of social media and toxic political zeitgeist, there are many inadvertent “opportunities” to stumble and ruin one’s career by uttering an “unacceptable” word or dispatching an “offensive tweet” or posting a politically incorrect photo. And even if one is currently careful, there are now social media detectives and fact-finding “archeologists” who can excavate and disseminate the faux pas, peccadillos, or misdeeds from a prominent person’s immature youth, which will destroy a famous person overnight. That can be a nightmare for anyone who becomes a bona fide celebrity after years of working hard to get there.

High achievers: Beware!

It’s an all-too-common news item: The crash and burn of yet another politician, celebrity, or prominent individual. It’s painful to watch someone who spent years to achieve the status of a household name suddenly, and often ignominiously, lose it all. This is the equivalent of a human train wreck.

Some adversaries (who doesn’t have a few?) will rejoice or express schadenfreude, but many people will experience some empathy or sorrow as they witness the implosion of a celebrity. Fans, followers, or voters may grieve as the object of their respect and adulation falls off the high pedestal of fame. What starts as a drip-drip of rumors and innuendos soon eventuates in a denouement. And with time, as additional public figures fall from grace, the previous casualties will become mere footnotes in the annals of human self-destruction. Their loss of face, shame, and wrenching emotional and financial toll will be forgotten from the public’s collective memory, but the embers of bitterness and regret will continue to smolder in the hearts and souls of those who inadvertently contributed to their own social or professional demise due to a mistake, error of judgement, or plain old-fashioned stupidity. For the fallen, forgiveness and redemption are hard to come by.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen over centuries, and they include historical figures such as kings, military leaders, religious leaders, and politicians. The fall from grace in the past often led to executions, excommunication, or persecution. In the contemporary era, the oppressive “cancel culture” will mercilessly discard anyone, regardless of stature, after only 1 “wrong” tweet. In the digital age of mass communication, being “cancelled” is a frequent fall from grace and is the equivalent of being ostracized from millions of denizens on social media, which can spell doom for one’s career and social interactions.

The list of those whose careers ended calamitously include many familiar names, but I will only cite their prominent roles (you can easily guess their names!):

• emperors, kings, presidents, prime ministers, and political demagogues
• congressmen, senators, governors, and mayors
• Nobel Laureates (a Medicine and Physiology winner went to prison for pedophilia, and a Peace Prize winner fell from grace for supporting a military dictatorship)
• Cardinals and bishops in various countries (for sexual or financial crimes)
• billionaires, often for erratic personal lives
• sport legends, including decorated athletes and coaches of college and professional teams
• world chess masters
• Wall Street moguls
• Hollywood celebrities, including actors and directors, some with Oscars and related recognitions
• television news anchors and commentators
• comedians of various stripes
• CEOs of major media companies
• talk show hosts watched by millions
• celebrated musicians (classical, pop, rap, or blues)
• university presidents
• others in esteemed positions (including some psychiatrists).

Why is this so common?

From a psychiatric perspective, the most compelling question is why is the fall from grace so common? What are the transgressions, flaws, and shortcomings of successful individuals whose reputations end up smeared or who lose everything they worked for? Why do high achievers, talented and successful, at the apogee of fame and fortune, lose it all with nary a chance for recovery

The answer is all too obvious: human frailties. Successful persons are by no means immune from poor judgment. They can be as error-prone as the rest of us mortals. Having robust cognitive intelligence can be undermined by stunted emotional intelligence or poor interpersonal or social judgment. In Freudian terms, famous people who crash and burn may have a “Swiss cheese superego” that allows their id to viciously weaken their ego. From a neuroscience perspective, their limbic system conquers their cortical circuitry with relentless innate forces, including:

• fervent sexual appetite, compounded by the cockiness that comes with fame
• felonious paraphilias, such as pedophilia or public indecency
• intense greed that clouds one’s judgment (a trait exhibited by some ultra-rich persons)
• narcissism, either inborn or acquired with unexpected success and power
• impulsivity and recklessness, with injurious words or actions.
• substance use.

Consideration should be given to psychopathology. Some may have a personality disorder. Others may be both blessed and cursed with hypomania that leads to high achievement but also to foolish and impulsive behavior.¹ Some may have maladaptive social skills seen in autism spectrum disorder (recently, a very prominent and innovative billionaire casually announced that he has autistic traits). And others my have limited coping skills to deal with fame and fortune and unwittingly end up shooting themselves in both feet.

Continue to: But perhaps the most common thread...

But perhaps the most common thread across all the tragic cases of self-destruction is hubris. As humans become rich, famous, or powerful, they gradually develop the fallacious belief that they can get away with anything because they have masses of fans and followers who “love them no matter what.” This dangerous “acquired narcissism” is an unfortunate byproduct of success. Humility is rare among celebrities and powerful leaders. Modest celebrities almost never fall from grace and are endowed with an innate antidote to self-aggrandizement. A few years ago, I wrote an editorial in Current Psychiatry titled “Should psychiatry list hubris in DSM-V?”² While hubris is not regarded as a psychiatric disorder, it is certainly an affliction that often ends badly. The mental repercussions can include depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, despair, and even falling on one’s sword. Hubris can be a fatal flaw with devastating consequences to one’s career. Perhaps those who aspire to become a celebrity should receive mentorship about hubris as a hazard of fame and fortune, when they are still in the “rising star” stage of their lives.

In contemporary society, with the era of social media and toxic political zeitgeist, there are many inadvertent “opportunities” to stumble and ruin one’s career by uttering an “unacceptable” word or dispatching an “offensive tweet” or posting a politically incorrect photo. And even if one is currently careful, there are now social media detectives and fact-finding “archeologists” who can excavate and disseminate the faux pas, peccadillos, or misdeeds from a prominent person’s immature youth, which will destroy a famous person overnight. That can be a nightmare for anyone who becomes a bona fide celebrity after years of working hard to get there.

High achievers: Beware!

CASE Sluggish, weak, and incoherent

Mr. O, age 24, who has a history of schizophrenia and obesity, presents to the emergency department (ED) for altered mental status (AMS). His mother reports that he has been sluggish, weak, incoherent, had no appetite, and that on the day before admission, he was drinking excessive amounts of water and urinating every 10 minutes.

HISTORY Multiple ineffective antipsychotics

Mr. O was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 21 and struggled with medication adherence, which resulted in multiple hospitalizations for stabilization. Trials of haloperidol, risperidone, paliperidone palmitate, and valproic acid had been ineffective. At the time of admission, his psychotropic medication regimen is fluphenazine decanoate, 25 mg injection every 2 weeks; clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium carbonate, 300 mg twice a day; benztropine, 2 mg every night; and trazodone, 50 mg every night.

EVALUATION Fever, tachycardia, and diabetic ketoacidosis

Upon arrival to the ED, Mr. O is obtunded, unable to follow commands, and does not respond to painful stimuli. On physical exam, he has a fever of 38.4°C (reference range 35.1°C to 37.9°C); tachycardia with a heart rate of 142 beats per minute (bpm) (reference range 60 to 100); tachypnea with a respiratory rate of 35 breaths per minute (reference range 12 to 20); a blood pressure of 116/76 mmHg (reference range 90/60 to 130/80); and hypoxemia with an oxygen saturation of 90% on room air (reference range 94% to 100%).

Mr. O is admitted to the hospital and his laboratory workup indicates diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), with a glucose of 1,700 mg/dL; anion gap of 30 (reference range 4 to 12 mmol/L); pH 7.04 (reference range 7.32 to 7.42); serum bicarbonate 6 (reference range 20 to 24 mEq/L); beta-hydroxybutyrate 11.04 (reference range 0 to 0.27 mmol/L); urine ketones, serum osmolality 407 (reference range 280 to 300 mOsm/kg); and an elevated white blood cell count of 18.4 (reference range 4.5 to 11.0 × 10⁹/L). A CT scan of the head is negative for acute pathology.

Initially, all psychotropic medications are held. On Day 3 of hospitalization, psychiatry is consulted and clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium, 300 mg/d; and benztropine, 1 mg at night, are restarted; however, fluphenazine decanoate and trazodone are held. The team recommends IV haloperidol, 2 mg as needed for agitation; however, it is never administered.

Imaging rules out deep vein thrombosis, cardiac dysfunction, and stroke, but a CT chest scan is notable for bilateral lung infiltrates, which suggests aspiration pneumonia.

Mr. O is diagnosed with diabetes, complicated by DKA, and is treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite resolution of the DKA, he remains altered with fever and tachycardia.

Continue to: On Day 6 of hospitalization...

On Day 6 of hospitalization, Mr. O continues to be tachycardic and obtunded with nuchal rigidity. The team decides to transfer Mr. O to another hospital for a higher level of care and continued workup of his persistent AMS.

Immediately upon arrival at the second hospital, infectious disease and neurology teams are consulted for further evaluation. Mr. O’s AMS continues despite no clear signs of infection or other neurologic insults.

[polldaddy:10930631]

The authors’ observations

Based on Mr. O’s psychiatric history and laboratory results, the first medical team concluded his initial AMS was likely secondary to DKA; however, the AMS continued after the DKA resolved. At the second hospital, Mr. O’s treatment team continued to dig for answers.

EVALUATION Exploring the differential diagnosis

At the second hospital, Mr. O is admitted to the ICU with fever (37.8°C), tachycardia (120 bpm), tachypnea, withdrawal from painful stimuli, decreased reflexes, and muscle rigidity, including clenched jaw. The differential diagnoses include meningitis, sepsis from aspiration pneumonia, severe metabolic encephalopathy with prolonged recovery, central pontine myelinolysis, anoxic brain injury, and subclinical seizures.

Empiric vancomycin, 1.75 g every 12 hours; ceftriaxone, 2 g/d; and acyclovir, 900 mg every 8 hours are started for meningoencephalitis, and all psychotropic medications are discontinued. Case reports have documented a relationship between hyperglycemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS) and malignant hyperthermia in rare cases¹; however, HHS is ruled out based on Mr. O’s laboratory results.A lumbar puncture and imaging rules out CNS infection. Antibiotic treatment is narrowed to ampicillin-sulbactam due to Mr. O’s prior CT chest showing concern for aspiration pneumonia. An MRI of the brain rules out central pontine myelinolysis, acute stroke, and anoxic brain injury, and an EEG shows nonspecific encephalopathy. On Day 10 of hospitalization, a neurologic exam shows flaccid paralysis and bilateral clonus, and Mr. O is mute. On Day 14 of hospitalization, his fever resolves, and his blood cultures are negative. On Day 15 of hospitalization, Mr. O’s creatine kinase (CK) level is elevated at 1,308 U/L (reference range 26 to 192 U/L), suggesting rhabdomyolysis.

Continue to: Given the neurologic exam findings...

Given the neurologic exam findings, and the limited evidence of infection, the differential diagnosis for Mr. O’s AMS is broadened to include catatonia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), serotonin syndrome, and autoimmune encephalitis. The psychiatry team evaluates Mr. O for catatonia. He scores 14 on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, with findings of immobility/stupor, mutism, staring, autonomic instability, and withdrawal indicating the presence of catatonia.²

The authors’ observations

When Mr. O was transferred to the second hospital, the primary concern was to rule out meningitis due to his unstable vitals, obtunded mental state, and nuchal rigidity. A comprehensive infectious workup, including lumbar puncture, was imperative because infection can not only lead to AMS, but also precipitate episodes of DKA. Mr. O’s persistently abnormal vital signs indicated an underlying process may have been missed by focusing on treating DKA.

TREATMENT Finally, the diagnosis is established

A lorazepam challenge is performed, and Mr. O receives 4 mg of lorazepam over 24 hours with little change in his catatonia symptoms. Given his persistent fever, tachycardia, and an elevated CK levels in the context of recent exposure to antipsychotic medications, Mr. O is diagnosed with NMS (Table 1^3,4 ) and is started on bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily.

[polldaddy:10930632]

The authors’ observations

Mr. O’s complicated medical state—starting with DKA, halting the use of antipsychotic medications, and the suspicion of catatonia due to his history of schizophrenia—all distracted from the ultimate diagnosis of NMS as the cause of his enduring AMS and autonomic instability. Catatonia and NMS have overlapping symptomatology, including rigidity, autonomic instability, and stupor, which make the diagnosis of either condition complicated. A positive lorazepam test to diagnose catatonia is defined as a marked reduction in catatonia symptoms (typically a 50% reduction) as measured on a standardized rating scale.⁵ However, a negative lorazepam challenge does not definitely rule out catatonia because some cases are resistant to benzodiazepines.⁶

NMS risk factors relevant in this case include male sex, young age, acute medical illness, dehydration, and exposure to multiple psychotropic medications, including 2 antipsychotics, clozapine and fluphenazine.⁷ DKA is especially pertinent due to its acute onset and cause of significant dehydration. NMS can occur at any point of antipsychotic exposure, although the risk is highest during the initial weeks of treatment and during dosage changes. Unfortunately, Mr. O’s treatment team was unable to determine whether his medication had been recently changed, so it is not known what role this may have played in the development of NMS. Although first-generation antipsychotics are considered more likely to cause NMS, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) dominate the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and these medications also can cause NMS.⁸ As occurred in this case, long-acting injectable antipsychotics can be easily forgotten when not administered in the hospital, and their presence in the body persists for weeks. For example, the half-life of fluphenazine decanoate is approximately 10 days, and the half-life of haloperidol decanoate is 21 days.⁹

Continue to: OUTCOME Improvement with bromocriptine

After 4 days of bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily, Mr. O is more alert, able to say “hello,” and can follow 1-step commands. By Day 26 of hospitalization, his CK levels decrease to 296 U/L, his CSF autoimmune panel is negative, and he is able to participate in physical therapy. After failing multiple swallow tests, Mr. O requires a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. He is discharged from the hospital to a long-term acute care facility with the plan to taper bromocriptine and restart a psychotropic regimen with his outpatient psychiatrist. At the time of discharge, he is able to sit at the edge of the bed independently, state his name, and respond to questions with multiple-word answers.

[polldaddy:10930633]

The authors’ observations

The most common pharmacologic treatments for NMS are dantrolene, bromocriptine, benzodiazepines (lorazepam or diazepam), and amantadine.³ Mild cases of NMS should be treated with discontinuation of all antipsychotics, supportive care, and benzodiazepines.³ Bromocriptine or amantadine are more appropriate for moderate cases and dantrolene for severe cases of NMS.³ All antipsychotics should be discontinued while a patient is experiencing an episode of NMS; however, once the NMS has resolved, clinicians must thoroughly evaluate the risks and benefits of restarting antipsychotic medication. After a patient has experienced an episode of NMS, clinicians generally should avoid prescribing the agent(s) that caused NMS and long-acting injections, and slowly titrate a low-potency SGA such as quetiapine.¹⁰Table 2^3,11,12 outlines the pharmacologic treatment of NMS.

Bottom Line

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) should always be part of the differential diagnosis in patients with mental illness and altered mental status. The risk of NMS is especially high in patients with acute medical illness and exposure to antipsychotic medications.

Related Resource

• Turner AH, Kim JJ, McCarron RM. Differentiating serotonin syndrome and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):30-36.

Drug Brand Names

Acyclovir • Zovirax
Amantadine • Gocovri
Ampicillin-sulbactam • Unasyn
Aripiprazole • Abilify Maintena
Benztropine • Cogentin
Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Ceftriaxone • Rocephin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Diazepam • Valium
Haloperidol • Haldol
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Paliperidone palmitate • Invega Sustenna
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Valproate sodium • Depakote
Trazodone • Oleptro
Vancomycin • Vancocin

CASE Sluggish, weak, and incoherent

Mr. O, age 24, who has a history of schizophrenia and obesity, presents to the emergency department (ED) for altered mental status (AMS). His mother reports that he has been sluggish, weak, incoherent, had no appetite, and that on the day before admission, he was drinking excessive amounts of water and urinating every 10 minutes.

HISTORY Multiple ineffective antipsychotics

Mr. O was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 21 and struggled with medication adherence, which resulted in multiple hospitalizations for stabilization. Trials of haloperidol, risperidone, paliperidone palmitate, and valproic acid had been ineffective. At the time of admission, his psychotropic medication regimen is fluphenazine decanoate, 25 mg injection every 2 weeks; clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium carbonate, 300 mg twice a day; benztropine, 2 mg every night; and trazodone, 50 mg every night.

EVALUATION Fever, tachycardia, and diabetic ketoacidosis

Upon arrival to the ED, Mr. O is obtunded, unable to follow commands, and does not respond to painful stimuli. On physical exam, he has a fever of 38.4°C (reference range 35.1°C to 37.9°C); tachycardia with a heart rate of 142 beats per minute (bpm) (reference range 60 to 100); tachypnea with a respiratory rate of 35 breaths per minute (reference range 12 to 20); a blood pressure of 116/76 mmHg (reference range 90/60 to 130/80); and hypoxemia with an oxygen saturation of 90% on room air (reference range 94% to 100%).

Mr. O is admitted to the hospital and his laboratory workup indicates diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), with a glucose of 1,700 mg/dL; anion gap of 30 (reference range 4 to 12 mmol/L); pH 7.04 (reference range 7.32 to 7.42); serum bicarbonate 6 (reference range 20 to 24 mEq/L); beta-hydroxybutyrate 11.04 (reference range 0 to 0.27 mmol/L); urine ketones, serum osmolality 407 (reference range 280 to 300 mOsm/kg); and an elevated white blood cell count of 18.4 (reference range 4.5 to 11.0 × 10⁹/L). A CT scan of the head is negative for acute pathology.

Initially, all psychotropic medications are held. On Day 3 of hospitalization, psychiatry is consulted and clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium, 300 mg/d; and benztropine, 1 mg at night, are restarted; however, fluphenazine decanoate and trazodone are held. The team recommends IV haloperidol, 2 mg as needed for agitation; however, it is never administered.

Imaging rules out deep vein thrombosis, cardiac dysfunction, and stroke, but a CT chest scan is notable for bilateral lung infiltrates, which suggests aspiration pneumonia.

Mr. O is diagnosed with diabetes, complicated by DKA, and is treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite resolution of the DKA, he remains altered with fever and tachycardia.

Continue to: On Day 6 of hospitalization...

On Day 6 of hospitalization, Mr. O continues to be tachycardic and obtunded with nuchal rigidity. The team decides to transfer Mr. O to another hospital for a higher level of care and continued workup of his persistent AMS.

Immediately upon arrival at the second hospital, infectious disease and neurology teams are consulted for further evaluation. Mr. O’s AMS continues despite no clear signs of infection or other neurologic insults.

[polldaddy:10930631]

The authors’ observations

Based on Mr. O’s psychiatric history and laboratory results, the first medical team concluded his initial AMS was likely secondary to DKA; however, the AMS continued after the DKA resolved. At the second hospital, Mr. O’s treatment team continued to dig for answers.

EVALUATION Exploring the differential diagnosis

At the second hospital, Mr. O is admitted to the ICU with fever (37.8°C), tachycardia (120 bpm), tachypnea, withdrawal from painful stimuli, decreased reflexes, and muscle rigidity, including clenched jaw. The differential diagnoses include meningitis, sepsis from aspiration pneumonia, severe metabolic encephalopathy with prolonged recovery, central pontine myelinolysis, anoxic brain injury, and subclinical seizures.

Empiric vancomycin, 1.75 g every 12 hours; ceftriaxone, 2 g/d; and acyclovir, 900 mg every 8 hours are started for meningoencephalitis, and all psychotropic medications are discontinued. Case reports have documented a relationship between hyperglycemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS) and malignant hyperthermia in rare cases¹; however, HHS is ruled out based on Mr. O’s laboratory results.A lumbar puncture and imaging rules out CNS infection. Antibiotic treatment is narrowed to ampicillin-sulbactam due to Mr. O’s prior CT chest showing concern for aspiration pneumonia. An MRI of the brain rules out central pontine myelinolysis, acute stroke, and anoxic brain injury, and an EEG shows nonspecific encephalopathy. On Day 10 of hospitalization, a neurologic exam shows flaccid paralysis and bilateral clonus, and Mr. O is mute. On Day 14 of hospitalization, his fever resolves, and his blood cultures are negative. On Day 15 of hospitalization, Mr. O’s creatine kinase (CK) level is elevated at 1,308 U/L (reference range 26 to 192 U/L), suggesting rhabdomyolysis.

Continue to: Given the neurologic exam findings...

Given the neurologic exam findings, and the limited evidence of infection, the differential diagnosis for Mr. O’s AMS is broadened to include catatonia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), serotonin syndrome, and autoimmune encephalitis. The psychiatry team evaluates Mr. O for catatonia. He scores 14 on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, with findings of immobility/stupor, mutism, staring, autonomic instability, and withdrawal indicating the presence of catatonia.²

The authors’ observations

When Mr. O was transferred to the second hospital, the primary concern was to rule out meningitis due to his unstable vitals, obtunded mental state, and nuchal rigidity. A comprehensive infectious workup, including lumbar puncture, was imperative because infection can not only lead to AMS, but also precipitate episodes of DKA. Mr. O’s persistently abnormal vital signs indicated an underlying process may have been missed by focusing on treating DKA.

TREATMENT Finally, the diagnosis is established

A lorazepam challenge is performed, and Mr. O receives 4 mg of lorazepam over 24 hours with little change in his catatonia symptoms. Given his persistent fever, tachycardia, and an elevated CK levels in the context of recent exposure to antipsychotic medications, Mr. O is diagnosed with NMS (Table 1^3,4 ) and is started on bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily.

[polldaddy:10930632]

The authors’ observations

Mr. O’s complicated medical state—starting with DKA, halting the use of antipsychotic medications, and the suspicion of catatonia due to his history of schizophrenia—all distracted from the ultimate diagnosis of NMS as the cause of his enduring AMS and autonomic instability. Catatonia and NMS have overlapping symptomatology, including rigidity, autonomic instability, and stupor, which make the diagnosis of either condition complicated. A positive lorazepam test to diagnose catatonia is defined as a marked reduction in catatonia symptoms (typically a 50% reduction) as measured on a standardized rating scale.⁵ However, a negative lorazepam challenge does not definitely rule out catatonia because some cases are resistant to benzodiazepines.⁶

NMS risk factors relevant in this case include male sex, young age, acute medical illness, dehydration, and exposure to multiple psychotropic medications, including 2 antipsychotics, clozapine and fluphenazine.⁷ DKA is especially pertinent due to its acute onset and cause of significant dehydration. NMS can occur at any point of antipsychotic exposure, although the risk is highest during the initial weeks of treatment and during dosage changes. Unfortunately, Mr. O’s treatment team was unable to determine whether his medication had been recently changed, so it is not known what role this may have played in the development of NMS. Although first-generation antipsychotics are considered more likely to cause NMS, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) dominate the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and these medications also can cause NMS.⁸ As occurred in this case, long-acting injectable antipsychotics can be easily forgotten when not administered in the hospital, and their presence in the body persists for weeks. For example, the half-life of fluphenazine decanoate is approximately 10 days, and the half-life of haloperidol decanoate is 21 days.⁹

Continue to: OUTCOME Improvement with bromocriptine

After 4 days of bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily, Mr. O is more alert, able to say “hello,” and can follow 1-step commands. By Day 26 of hospitalization, his CK levels decrease to 296 U/L, his CSF autoimmune panel is negative, and he is able to participate in physical therapy. After failing multiple swallow tests, Mr. O requires a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. He is discharged from the hospital to a long-term acute care facility with the plan to taper bromocriptine and restart a psychotropic regimen with his outpatient psychiatrist. At the time of discharge, he is able to sit at the edge of the bed independently, state his name, and respond to questions with multiple-word answers.

[polldaddy:10930633]

The authors’ observations

The most common pharmacologic treatments for NMS are dantrolene, bromocriptine, benzodiazepines (lorazepam or diazepam), and amantadine.³ Mild cases of NMS should be treated with discontinuation of all antipsychotics, supportive care, and benzodiazepines.³ Bromocriptine or amantadine are more appropriate for moderate cases and dantrolene for severe cases of NMS.³ All antipsychotics should be discontinued while a patient is experiencing an episode of NMS; however, once the NMS has resolved, clinicians must thoroughly evaluate the risks and benefits of restarting antipsychotic medication. After a patient has experienced an episode of NMS, clinicians generally should avoid prescribing the agent(s) that caused NMS and long-acting injections, and slowly titrate a low-potency SGA such as quetiapine.¹⁰Table 2^3,11,12 outlines the pharmacologic treatment of NMS.

Bottom Line

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) should always be part of the differential diagnosis in patients with mental illness and altered mental status. The risk of NMS is especially high in patients with acute medical illness and exposure to antipsychotic medications.

Related Resource

• Turner AH, Kim JJ, McCarron RM. Differentiating serotonin syndrome and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):30-36.

Drug Brand Names

Acyclovir • Zovirax
Amantadine • Gocovri
Ampicillin-sulbactam • Unasyn
Aripiprazole • Abilify Maintena
Benztropine • Cogentin
Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Ceftriaxone • Rocephin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Diazepam • Valium
Haloperidol • Haldol
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Paliperidone palmitate • Invega Sustenna
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Valproate sodium • Depakote
Trazodone • Oleptro
Vancomycin • Vancocin

CASE Sluggish, weak, and incoherent

Mr. O, age 24, who has a history of schizophrenia and obesity, presents to the emergency department (ED) for altered mental status (AMS). His mother reports that he has been sluggish, weak, incoherent, had no appetite, and that on the day before admission, he was drinking excessive amounts of water and urinating every 10 minutes.

HISTORY Multiple ineffective antipsychotics

Mr. O was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 21 and struggled with medication adherence, which resulted in multiple hospitalizations for stabilization. Trials of haloperidol, risperidone, paliperidone palmitate, and valproic acid had been ineffective. At the time of admission, his psychotropic medication regimen is fluphenazine decanoate, 25 mg injection every 2 weeks; clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium carbonate, 300 mg twice a day; benztropine, 2 mg every night; and trazodone, 50 mg every night.

EVALUATION Fever, tachycardia, and diabetic ketoacidosis

Upon arrival to the ED, Mr. O is obtunded, unable to follow commands, and does not respond to painful stimuli. On physical exam, he has a fever of 38.4°C (reference range 35.1°C to 37.9°C); tachycardia with a heart rate of 142 beats per minute (bpm) (reference range 60 to 100); tachypnea with a respiratory rate of 35 breaths per minute (reference range 12 to 20); a blood pressure of 116/76 mmHg (reference range 90/60 to 130/80); and hypoxemia with an oxygen saturation of 90% on room air (reference range 94% to 100%).

Mr. O is admitted to the hospital and his laboratory workup indicates diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), with a glucose of 1,700 mg/dL; anion gap of 30 (reference range 4 to 12 mmol/L); pH 7.04 (reference range 7.32 to 7.42); serum bicarbonate 6 (reference range 20 to 24 mEq/L); beta-hydroxybutyrate 11.04 (reference range 0 to 0.27 mmol/L); urine ketones, serum osmolality 407 (reference range 280 to 300 mOsm/kg); and an elevated white blood cell count of 18.4 (reference range 4.5 to 11.0 × 10⁹/L). A CT scan of the head is negative for acute pathology.

Initially, all psychotropic medications are held. On Day 3 of hospitalization, psychiatry is consulted and clozapine, 50 mg/d; lithium, 300 mg/d; and benztropine, 1 mg at night, are restarted; however, fluphenazine decanoate and trazodone are held. The team recommends IV haloperidol, 2 mg as needed for agitation; however, it is never administered.

Imaging rules out deep vein thrombosis, cardiac dysfunction, and stroke, but a CT chest scan is notable for bilateral lung infiltrates, which suggests aspiration pneumonia.

Mr. O is diagnosed with diabetes, complicated by DKA, and is treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite resolution of the DKA, he remains altered with fever and tachycardia.

Continue to: On Day 6 of hospitalization...

On Day 6 of hospitalization, Mr. O continues to be tachycardic and obtunded with nuchal rigidity. The team decides to transfer Mr. O to another hospital for a higher level of care and continued workup of his persistent AMS.

Immediately upon arrival at the second hospital, infectious disease and neurology teams are consulted for further evaluation. Mr. O’s AMS continues despite no clear signs of infection or other neurologic insults.

[polldaddy:10930631]

The authors’ observations

Based on Mr. O’s psychiatric history and laboratory results, the first medical team concluded his initial AMS was likely secondary to DKA; however, the AMS continued after the DKA resolved. At the second hospital, Mr. O’s treatment team continued to dig for answers.

EVALUATION Exploring the differential diagnosis

At the second hospital, Mr. O is admitted to the ICU with fever (37.8°C), tachycardia (120 bpm), tachypnea, withdrawal from painful stimuli, decreased reflexes, and muscle rigidity, including clenched jaw. The differential diagnoses include meningitis, sepsis from aspiration pneumonia, severe metabolic encephalopathy with prolonged recovery, central pontine myelinolysis, anoxic brain injury, and subclinical seizures.

Empiric vancomycin, 1.75 g every 12 hours; ceftriaxone, 2 g/d; and acyclovir, 900 mg every 8 hours are started for meningoencephalitis, and all psychotropic medications are discontinued. Case reports have documented a relationship between hyperglycemic hyperosmolar syndrome (HHS) and malignant hyperthermia in rare cases¹; however, HHS is ruled out based on Mr. O’s laboratory results.A lumbar puncture and imaging rules out CNS infection. Antibiotic treatment is narrowed to ampicillin-sulbactam due to Mr. O’s prior CT chest showing concern for aspiration pneumonia. An MRI of the brain rules out central pontine myelinolysis, acute stroke, and anoxic brain injury, and an EEG shows nonspecific encephalopathy. On Day 10 of hospitalization, a neurologic exam shows flaccid paralysis and bilateral clonus, and Mr. O is mute. On Day 14 of hospitalization, his fever resolves, and his blood cultures are negative. On Day 15 of hospitalization, Mr. O’s creatine kinase (CK) level is elevated at 1,308 U/L (reference range 26 to 192 U/L), suggesting rhabdomyolysis.

Continue to: Given the neurologic exam findings...

Given the neurologic exam findings, and the limited evidence of infection, the differential diagnosis for Mr. O’s AMS is broadened to include catatonia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), serotonin syndrome, and autoimmune encephalitis. The psychiatry team evaluates Mr. O for catatonia. He scores 14 on the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale, with findings of immobility/stupor, mutism, staring, autonomic instability, and withdrawal indicating the presence of catatonia.²

The authors’ observations

When Mr. O was transferred to the second hospital, the primary concern was to rule out meningitis due to his unstable vitals, obtunded mental state, and nuchal rigidity. A comprehensive infectious workup, including lumbar puncture, was imperative because infection can not only lead to AMS, but also precipitate episodes of DKA. Mr. O’s persistently abnormal vital signs indicated an underlying process may have been missed by focusing on treating DKA.

TREATMENT Finally, the diagnosis is established

A lorazepam challenge is performed, and Mr. O receives 4 mg of lorazepam over 24 hours with little change in his catatonia symptoms. Given his persistent fever, tachycardia, and an elevated CK levels in the context of recent exposure to antipsychotic medications, Mr. O is diagnosed with NMS (Table 1^3,4 ) and is started on bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily.

[polldaddy:10930632]

The authors’ observations

Mr. O’s complicated medical state—starting with DKA, halting the use of antipsychotic medications, and the suspicion of catatonia due to his history of schizophrenia—all distracted from the ultimate diagnosis of NMS as the cause of his enduring AMS and autonomic instability. Catatonia and NMS have overlapping symptomatology, including rigidity, autonomic instability, and stupor, which make the diagnosis of either condition complicated. A positive lorazepam test to diagnose catatonia is defined as a marked reduction in catatonia symptoms (typically a 50% reduction) as measured on a standardized rating scale.⁵ However, a negative lorazepam challenge does not definitely rule out catatonia because some cases are resistant to benzodiazepines.⁶

NMS risk factors relevant in this case include male sex, young age, acute medical illness, dehydration, and exposure to multiple psychotropic medications, including 2 antipsychotics, clozapine and fluphenazine.⁷ DKA is especially pertinent due to its acute onset and cause of significant dehydration. NMS can occur at any point of antipsychotic exposure, although the risk is highest during the initial weeks of treatment and during dosage changes. Unfortunately, Mr. O’s treatment team was unable to determine whether his medication had been recently changed, so it is not known what role this may have played in the development of NMS. Although first-generation antipsychotics are considered more likely to cause NMS, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) dominate the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and these medications also can cause NMS.⁸ As occurred in this case, long-acting injectable antipsychotics can be easily forgotten when not administered in the hospital, and their presence in the body persists for weeks. For example, the half-life of fluphenazine decanoate is approximately 10 days, and the half-life of haloperidol decanoate is 21 days.⁹

Continue to: OUTCOME Improvement with bromocriptine

After 4 days of bromocriptine, 5 mg 3 times daily, Mr. O is more alert, able to say “hello,” and can follow 1-step commands. By Day 26 of hospitalization, his CK levels decrease to 296 U/L, his CSF autoimmune panel is negative, and he is able to participate in physical therapy. After failing multiple swallow tests, Mr. O requires a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. He is discharged from the hospital to a long-term acute care facility with the plan to taper bromocriptine and restart a psychotropic regimen with his outpatient psychiatrist. At the time of discharge, he is able to sit at the edge of the bed independently, state his name, and respond to questions with multiple-word answers.

[polldaddy:10930633]

The authors’ observations

The most common pharmacologic treatments for NMS are dantrolene, bromocriptine, benzodiazepines (lorazepam or diazepam), and amantadine.³ Mild cases of NMS should be treated with discontinuation of all antipsychotics, supportive care, and benzodiazepines.³ Bromocriptine or amantadine are more appropriate for moderate cases and dantrolene for severe cases of NMS.³ All antipsychotics should be discontinued while a patient is experiencing an episode of NMS; however, once the NMS has resolved, clinicians must thoroughly evaluate the risks and benefits of restarting antipsychotic medication. After a patient has experienced an episode of NMS, clinicians generally should avoid prescribing the agent(s) that caused NMS and long-acting injections, and slowly titrate a low-potency SGA such as quetiapine.¹⁰Table 2^3,11,12 outlines the pharmacologic treatment of NMS.

Bottom Line

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) should always be part of the differential diagnosis in patients with mental illness and altered mental status. The risk of NMS is especially high in patients with acute medical illness and exposure to antipsychotic medications.

Related Resource

• Turner AH, Kim JJ, McCarron RM. Differentiating serotonin syndrome and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(2):30-36.

Drug Brand Names

Acyclovir • Zovirax
Amantadine • Gocovri
Ampicillin-sulbactam • Unasyn
Aripiprazole • Abilify Maintena
Benztropine • Cogentin
Bromocriptine • Cycloset, Parlodel
Ceftriaxone • Rocephin
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Diazepam • Valium
Haloperidol • Haldol
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Paliperidone palmitate • Invega Sustenna
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Risperidone • Risperdal
Valproate sodium • Depakote
Trazodone • Oleptro
Vancomycin • Vancocin

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner.”¹Intimate partner violence was a widespread problem even before COVID-19, with lifetime rates of nearly 35% among White women, 28% among White men, and highest amongst those who identify as people of color, lesbian, or bisexual.¹ The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified risk factors for IPV such as unemployment and social isolation—particularly in marginalized communities—while decreasing access to resources such as childcare and shelters.² Because most individuals do not voluntarily disclose or seek treatment for IPV, it is critical we use the following recommendations to complete safe, trauma-informed, recovery-oriented assessment in patients presenting for care, whether in person or via telehealth.

Ensure a safe environment

At the onset of a telehealth appointment, ask the patient “Who is in the room with you?” If an adult or child age >2 years is present, do not assess for IPV because it may be unsafe for the patient to answer such questions. Encourage the patient to use privacy-enhancing strategies (eg, wearing headphones, going outside, calling from a vehicle). Be flexible; someone may not be able to discuss IPV during an appointment but might be able to at a different time, such as when their partner goes to work. For patients who disclose IPV, identify a word, phrase, or gesture to quickly communicate their partner’s presence or need for immediate help.² While the “Signal for Help” (ie, thumb first tucked into the palm, then covered with fingers to form a fist) has been developed,³ it is not universally familiar; until then, establish specific communications and preferences with each patient. Include a plan for the patient to abruptly disconnect (eg, “You have the wrong number”) with a pre-determined method of follow-up.

Obtain informed consent

Before asking a patient about IPV, provide psychoeducation about the purpose, including its relationship to one’s health. Acknowledge reasons it may not be safe to provide and/or document answers, and describe limits of confidentiality and local mandated reporting requirements.

Standardize the assessment

Intimate partner violence assessment should be normalized (eg, “Because violence is common, I ask everyone about their relationships”), direct, and well-integrated. Know whether your site uses a specific IPV screening tool, such as the Relationship Health and Safety Screen (RHSS), which is used at the VA; if so, learn and practice asking the specific questions aloud until it feels routine and you can maintain eye contact throughout. Examples of other IPV assessment instruments include the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS); Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS), Partner Violence Screen (PVS), and Women Abuse Screening Tool (WAST).⁴ Pay attention to the populations in which a tool has been studied, any associated copyright fees, and gender-neutral and non-heteronormative language. Avoid asking leading questions (eg, “You’re not being hurt, are you?”) or using charged/interpretable terms (eg, “Is someone abusing you?”).

Document with intention

Use person-centered, recovery-oriented language (eg, someone who experiences or uses IPV) rather than stigmatizing language (eg, victim, batterer, abuser). Describe what happened using the individual’s own words and clearly identify the source of information, witnesses, and any weapons used. Choose nonpejorative language (ie, “states” instead of “claims”). Do not document details of the safety plan in the chart because doing so can compromise safety.

Provide resources and referrals

Regardless of whether a patient consents to screening/documentation or discloses IPV, you should offer universal education, resources, and referrals. Review national contacts (National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233), community agencies (available through www.domesticshelters.org), and suggested safety apps such as myPlan (www.myplanapp.org), but do not send a patient electronic or physical materials without first confirming it is safe to do so. Assess the patient’s interest in legal steps (eg, obtaining a protection order, pressing charges) while recognizing and respecting valid concerns about law enforcement involvement, particularly among the Black community and Black transgender women. Provide options instead of instructions, which will empower patients to choose what is best for their situation, and support their decisions.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner.”¹Intimate partner violence was a widespread problem even before COVID-19, with lifetime rates of nearly 35% among White women, 28% among White men, and highest amongst those who identify as people of color, lesbian, or bisexual.¹ The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified risk factors for IPV such as unemployment and social isolation—particularly in marginalized communities—while decreasing access to resources such as childcare and shelters.² Because most individuals do not voluntarily disclose or seek treatment for IPV, it is critical we use the following recommendations to complete safe, trauma-informed, recovery-oriented assessment in patients presenting for care, whether in person or via telehealth.

Ensure a safe environment

At the onset of a telehealth appointment, ask the patient “Who is in the room with you?” If an adult or child age >2 years is present, do not assess for IPV because it may be unsafe for the patient to answer such questions. Encourage the patient to use privacy-enhancing strategies (eg, wearing headphones, going outside, calling from a vehicle). Be flexible; someone may not be able to discuss IPV during an appointment but might be able to at a different time, such as when their partner goes to work. For patients who disclose IPV, identify a word, phrase, or gesture to quickly communicate their partner’s presence or need for immediate help.² While the “Signal for Help” (ie, thumb first tucked into the palm, then covered with fingers to form a fist) has been developed,³ it is not universally familiar; until then, establish specific communications and preferences with each patient. Include a plan for the patient to abruptly disconnect (eg, “You have the wrong number”) with a pre-determined method of follow-up.

Obtain informed consent

Before asking a patient about IPV, provide psychoeducation about the purpose, including its relationship to one’s health. Acknowledge reasons it may not be safe to provide and/or document answers, and describe limits of confidentiality and local mandated reporting requirements.

Standardize the assessment

Intimate partner violence assessment should be normalized (eg, “Because violence is common, I ask everyone about their relationships”), direct, and well-integrated. Know whether your site uses a specific IPV screening tool, such as the Relationship Health and Safety Screen (RHSS), which is used at the VA; if so, learn and practice asking the specific questions aloud until it feels routine and you can maintain eye contact throughout. Examples of other IPV assessment instruments include the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS); Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS), Partner Violence Screen (PVS), and Women Abuse Screening Tool (WAST).⁴ Pay attention to the populations in which a tool has been studied, any associated copyright fees, and gender-neutral and non-heteronormative language. Avoid asking leading questions (eg, “You’re not being hurt, are you?”) or using charged/interpretable terms (eg, “Is someone abusing you?”).

Document with intention

Use person-centered, recovery-oriented language (eg, someone who experiences or uses IPV) rather than stigmatizing language (eg, victim, batterer, abuser). Describe what happened using the individual’s own words and clearly identify the source of information, witnesses, and any weapons used. Choose nonpejorative language (ie, “states” instead of “claims”). Do not document details of the safety plan in the chart because doing so can compromise safety.

Provide resources and referrals

Regardless of whether a patient consents to screening/documentation or discloses IPV, you should offer universal education, resources, and referrals. Review national contacts (National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233), community agencies (available through www.domesticshelters.org), and suggested safety apps such as myPlan (www.myplanapp.org), but do not send a patient electronic or physical materials without first confirming it is safe to do so. Assess the patient’s interest in legal steps (eg, obtaining a protection order, pressing charges) while recognizing and respecting valid concerns about law enforcement involvement, particularly among the Black community and Black transgender women. Provide options instead of instructions, which will empower patients to choose what is best for their situation, and support their decisions.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner.”¹Intimate partner violence was a widespread problem even before COVID-19, with lifetime rates of nearly 35% among White women, 28% among White men, and highest amongst those who identify as people of color, lesbian, or bisexual.¹ The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified risk factors for IPV such as unemployment and social isolation—particularly in marginalized communities—while decreasing access to resources such as childcare and shelters.² Because most individuals do not voluntarily disclose or seek treatment for IPV, it is critical we use the following recommendations to complete safe, trauma-informed, recovery-oriented assessment in patients presenting for care, whether in person or via telehealth.

Ensure a safe environment

At the onset of a telehealth appointment, ask the patient “Who is in the room with you?” If an adult or child age >2 years is present, do not assess for IPV because it may be unsafe for the patient to answer such questions. Encourage the patient to use privacy-enhancing strategies (eg, wearing headphones, going outside, calling from a vehicle). Be flexible; someone may not be able to discuss IPV during an appointment but might be able to at a different time, such as when their partner goes to work. For patients who disclose IPV, identify a word, phrase, or gesture to quickly communicate their partner’s presence or need for immediate help.² While the “Signal for Help” (ie, thumb first tucked into the palm, then covered with fingers to form a fist) has been developed,³ it is not universally familiar; until then, establish specific communications and preferences with each patient. Include a plan for the patient to abruptly disconnect (eg, “You have the wrong number”) with a pre-determined method of follow-up.

Obtain informed consent

Before asking a patient about IPV, provide psychoeducation about the purpose, including its relationship to one’s health. Acknowledge reasons it may not be safe to provide and/or document answers, and describe limits of confidentiality and local mandated reporting requirements.

Standardize the assessment

Intimate partner violence assessment should be normalized (eg, “Because violence is common, I ask everyone about their relationships”), direct, and well-integrated. Know whether your site uses a specific IPV screening tool, such as the Relationship Health and Safety Screen (RHSS), which is used at the VA; if so, learn and practice asking the specific questions aloud until it feels routine and you can maintain eye contact throughout. Examples of other IPV assessment instruments include the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS); Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS), Partner Violence Screen (PVS), and Women Abuse Screening Tool (WAST).⁴ Pay attention to the populations in which a tool has been studied, any associated copyright fees, and gender-neutral and non-heteronormative language. Avoid asking leading questions (eg, “You’re not being hurt, are you?”) or using charged/interpretable terms (eg, “Is someone abusing you?”).

Document with intention

Use person-centered, recovery-oriented language (eg, someone who experiences or uses IPV) rather than stigmatizing language (eg, victim, batterer, abuser). Describe what happened using the individual’s own words and clearly identify the source of information, witnesses, and any weapons used. Choose nonpejorative language (ie, “states” instead of “claims”). Do not document details of the safety plan in the chart because doing so can compromise safety.

Provide resources and referrals

Regardless of whether a patient consents to screening/documentation or discloses IPV, you should offer universal education, resources, and referrals. Review national contacts (National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233), community agencies (available through www.domesticshelters.org), and suggested safety apps such as myPlan (www.myplanapp.org), but do not send a patient electronic or physical materials without first confirming it is safe to do so. Assess the patient’s interest in legal steps (eg, obtaining a protection order, pressing charges) while recognizing and respecting valid concerns about law enforcement involvement, particularly among the Black community and Black transgender women. Provide options instead of instructions, which will empower patients to choose what is best for their situation, and support their decisions.