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

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy Dr. Donald Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widespread use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Shoddy” research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “lifesaver”

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

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

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

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

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

FDA’s position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A growing movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widespread use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Shoddy” research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “lifesaver”

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

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

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

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

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

FDA’s position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A growing movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widespread use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Shoddy” research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A “lifesaver”

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

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

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

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

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

FDA’s position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A growing movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

George agreed that the therapy is not without its shortcomings.

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

Among the lowest earners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spending vs. saving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the lowest earners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spending vs. saving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the lowest earners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spending vs. saving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

The origin of the NSC

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

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

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

Possible NSC common factors

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

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

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

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

Discussion

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

The origin of the NSC

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

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

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

Possible NSC common factors

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

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

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

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

Discussion

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

The origin of the NSC

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

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

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

Possible NSC common factors

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

The Food and Drug Administration will not object to qualified health claims that consumption of certain cranberry juice products and cranberry supplement products may reduce the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections in otherwise healthy women.

EHStock/iStock/Getty Images

In a letter of enforcement discretion issued on July 21, the FDA responded to a health claim petition submitted by Ocean Spray Cranberries. “A health claim characterizes the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition,” according to the FDA. Ocean Spray Cranberries asked the FDA for an authorized health claim regarding the relationship between the consumption of cranberry beverages and supplements and a reduction in the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in healthy women.

After reviewing the evidence, the FDA determined that the existing science did not support an authorized health claim, but did allow for a qualified health claim for certain cranberry juice beverages and supplements. A qualified health claim does not constitute an FDA approval; the FDA instead issues a Letter of Enforcement Discretion that includes language reflecting the level of scientific evidence for the claim.

The currently available scientific evidence for a relationship between cranberry and recurrent UTIs includes five intervention studies, according to the FDA letter. Two of these were high-quality, randomized, controlled trials in which daily consumption of a cranberry juice beverage was significantly associated with a reduced risk of recurrent UTIs. Another randomized, controlled trial yielded mixed results, and two other intervention studies that were moderate-quality, randomized, controlled trials showed no effect of cranberry juice consumption on UTI risk reduction.

The FDA’s letter of enforcement discretion states that, with regard to cranberry juice beverages, “Limited and inconsistent scientific evidence shows that by consuming one serving (8 oz) each day of a cranberry juice beverage, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

Similarly, for cranberry dietary supplements, the FDA states that “Limited scientific evidence shows that, by consuming 500 mg each day of cranberry dietary supplement, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

The qualified health claims apply specifically to cranberry juice beverages that contain at least 27% cranberry juice, and cranberry dietary supplements containing at least 500 mg of cranberry fruit powder. “The claims do not include other conventional foods or food products made from or containing cranberries, such as dried cranberries or cranberry sauce,” according to the FDA statement.

“With recurrent UTI, a major concern is the frequent use of antibiotics,” Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington and an assistant clinical professor at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“The challenge is to identify habits and/or nonantibiotic treatment to prevent recurrent UTI and decrease the need for antibiotics,” she said. “The regular use of cranberry can decrease the frequency of UTI in some, but not all, people.

“It does not appear to mask the symptoms of a UTI, so if it is not effective to prevent the infection, the presumptive diagnosis can be made based on the common symptoms,” she explained.

Dr. Bohon said that she has recommended the use of cranberry to some of her patients who have recurrent UTIs and has had success with many of them.

“I think it is important to make it clear that cranberry can be beneficial for some patients to decrease the frequency of UTI. It will not be effective for everyone who has frequent UTI, but for those who use it and have fewer UTIs, there will be less frequent exposure to antibiotics,” she emphasized. “What we need to know is who benefits the most from cranberry to prevent recurrent UTIs; whether age, race, coexisting health problems [such as diabetes], and use of hormonal contraception or menopause impact on its success.”

Dr. Bohon had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration will not object to qualified health claims that consumption of certain cranberry juice products and cranberry supplement products may reduce the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections in otherwise healthy women.

EHStock/iStock/Getty Images

In a letter of enforcement discretion issued on July 21, the FDA responded to a health claim petition submitted by Ocean Spray Cranberries. “A health claim characterizes the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition,” according to the FDA. Ocean Spray Cranberries asked the FDA for an authorized health claim regarding the relationship between the consumption of cranberry beverages and supplements and a reduction in the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in healthy women.

After reviewing the evidence, the FDA determined that the existing science did not support an authorized health claim, but did allow for a qualified health claim for certain cranberry juice beverages and supplements. A qualified health claim does not constitute an FDA approval; the FDA instead issues a Letter of Enforcement Discretion that includes language reflecting the level of scientific evidence for the claim.

The currently available scientific evidence for a relationship between cranberry and recurrent UTIs includes five intervention studies, according to the FDA letter. Two of these were high-quality, randomized, controlled trials in which daily consumption of a cranberry juice beverage was significantly associated with a reduced risk of recurrent UTIs. Another randomized, controlled trial yielded mixed results, and two other intervention studies that were moderate-quality, randomized, controlled trials showed no effect of cranberry juice consumption on UTI risk reduction.

The FDA’s letter of enforcement discretion states that, with regard to cranberry juice beverages, “Limited and inconsistent scientific evidence shows that by consuming one serving (8 oz) each day of a cranberry juice beverage, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

Similarly, for cranberry dietary supplements, the FDA states that “Limited scientific evidence shows that, by consuming 500 mg each day of cranberry dietary supplement, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

The qualified health claims apply specifically to cranberry juice beverages that contain at least 27% cranberry juice, and cranberry dietary supplements containing at least 500 mg of cranberry fruit powder. “The claims do not include other conventional foods or food products made from or containing cranberries, such as dried cranberries or cranberry sauce,” according to the FDA statement.

“With recurrent UTI, a major concern is the frequent use of antibiotics,” Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington and an assistant clinical professor at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“The challenge is to identify habits and/or nonantibiotic treatment to prevent recurrent UTI and decrease the need for antibiotics,” she said. “The regular use of cranberry can decrease the frequency of UTI in some, but not all, people.

“It does not appear to mask the symptoms of a UTI, so if it is not effective to prevent the infection, the presumptive diagnosis can be made based on the common symptoms,” she explained.

Dr. Bohon said that she has recommended the use of cranberry to some of her patients who have recurrent UTIs and has had success with many of them.

“I think it is important to make it clear that cranberry can be beneficial for some patients to decrease the frequency of UTI. It will not be effective for everyone who has frequent UTI, but for those who use it and have fewer UTIs, there will be less frequent exposure to antibiotics,” she emphasized. “What we need to know is who benefits the most from cranberry to prevent recurrent UTIs; whether age, race, coexisting health problems [such as diabetes], and use of hormonal contraception or menopause impact on its success.”

Dr. Bohon had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration will not object to qualified health claims that consumption of certain cranberry juice products and cranberry supplement products may reduce the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections in otherwise healthy women.

EHStock/iStock/Getty Images

In a letter of enforcement discretion issued on July 21, the FDA responded to a health claim petition submitted by Ocean Spray Cranberries. “A health claim characterizes the relationship between a substance and a disease or health-related condition,” according to the FDA. Ocean Spray Cranberries asked the FDA for an authorized health claim regarding the relationship between the consumption of cranberry beverages and supplements and a reduction in the risk of recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in healthy women.

After reviewing the evidence, the FDA determined that the existing science did not support an authorized health claim, but did allow for a qualified health claim for certain cranberry juice beverages and supplements. A qualified health claim does not constitute an FDA approval; the FDA instead issues a Letter of Enforcement Discretion that includes language reflecting the level of scientific evidence for the claim.

The currently available scientific evidence for a relationship between cranberry and recurrent UTIs includes five intervention studies, according to the FDA letter. Two of these were high-quality, randomized, controlled trials in which daily consumption of a cranberry juice beverage was significantly associated with a reduced risk of recurrent UTIs. Another randomized, controlled trial yielded mixed results, and two other intervention studies that were moderate-quality, randomized, controlled trials showed no effect of cranberry juice consumption on UTI risk reduction.

The FDA’s letter of enforcement discretion states that, with regard to cranberry juice beverages, “Limited and inconsistent scientific evidence shows that by consuming one serving (8 oz) each day of a cranberry juice beverage, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

Similarly, for cranberry dietary supplements, the FDA states that “Limited scientific evidence shows that, by consuming 500 mg each day of cranberry dietary supplement, healthy women who have had a urinary tract infection may reduce their risk of recurrent UTI.”

The qualified health claims apply specifically to cranberry juice beverages that contain at least 27% cranberry juice, and cranberry dietary supplements containing at least 500 mg of cranberry fruit powder. “The claims do not include other conventional foods or food products made from or containing cranberries, such as dried cranberries or cranberry sauce,” according to the FDA statement.

“With recurrent UTI, a major concern is the frequent use of antibiotics,” Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Washington and an assistant clinical professor at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“The challenge is to identify habits and/or nonantibiotic treatment to prevent recurrent UTI and decrease the need for antibiotics,” she said. “The regular use of cranberry can decrease the frequency of UTI in some, but not all, people.

“It does not appear to mask the symptoms of a UTI, so if it is not effective to prevent the infection, the presumptive diagnosis can be made based on the common symptoms,” she explained.

Dr. Bohon said that she has recommended the use of cranberry to some of her patients who have recurrent UTIs and has had success with many of them.

“I think it is important to make it clear that cranberry can be beneficial for some patients to decrease the frequency of UTI. It will not be effective for everyone who has frequent UTI, but for those who use it and have fewer UTIs, there will be less frequent exposure to antibiotics,” she emphasized. “What we need to know is who benefits the most from cranberry to prevent recurrent UTIs; whether age, race, coexisting health problems [such as diabetes], and use of hormonal contraception or menopause impact on its success.”

Dr. Bohon had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Internists continue to fall at the low end of the earnings and net worth spectrum for medical fields, according to the Medscape Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The results are from a larger survey that tracked physicians’ efforts to reduce or eliminate debt, save, invest, purchase property, and prepare for retirement. The annual survey was completed just as the COVID-19 pandemic was taking hold, and the findings provide a baseline against which to view the effects of the pandemic, which turned the lives of many physicians upside down.

Conducted from Oct. 4, 2019, until Feb. 10, 2020, the survey represents 17,461 physicians from 29 areas of medicine, including family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
 

Earnings and net worth

Internists earned on average $251,000 annually, sixth from the bottom of the list and approximately half the amount of the most lucrative specialty, orthopedics. The annual salary increased from $243,000 in 2019.

The average annual salary for internists represents a 2.5% increase, compared with the 1.5% increase for specialists, whose annual income rose from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 in 2020.

The low earnings for internists are echoed in the findings for net worth: 58% of internists have a net worth of less than $1 million, 37% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% have more than $5 million. For comparison, half of all physicians have a net worth of less than $1 million, 42% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 8% have over $5 million.

About 40% of internists indicated that their net worth was less than $500,000, which is the fourth highest of the 29 medical fields surveyed. About 44% of pediatricians, 46% of family practitioners, and 30% of ob.gyns. also reported their net worth at less than $500,000, so the primary care providers share low net worth compared with their colleagues. About 41% of neurologists reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Only 5% of internists reported a net worth of more than $5 million. The specialties with the most physicians with net worth exceeding $5 million are orthopedists, at 19%, and plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists, each at 16%.

Gender disparity in net worth appears to be lower among internists than in other fields. Among all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth in excess of $1 million, but among internists, 46% of men and 36% of women did so. About 64% of the internists who took the survey are men, and 34% are women.

Higher net worth tracks clearly with age group, as expected in light of diminishing debt over time and an accumulation of wealth.
 

Expenses

The top three expenses that internists face are mortgage on primary residence (60%), car loans (36%), and credit card debt (26%); 12% of respondents reported no debt or expenses. Among all physicians, the breakdown of expenses by category is very similar to that for internists.

Paying off school loans affects 24% of internists, which was in the middle of the 29 physician groups. The percentage ranges from physical medicine and rehabilitation at 34% to rheumatology at 15%.

About 42% of internists have a mortgage of less than $300,000, and 30% have no mortgage at all. Figures are similar for all physicians.

Internists are apparently savers and not spenders. Only 8% reported living above their means; 39% indicated that they live below their means. These figures are similar for all physicians who responded to the survey.

About 60% of internists put more than $1,000 a month into tax-deferred accounts. Most internists also contribute to taxable savings accounts, which might reflect the fact that they had contributed the maximum amount to tax-deferred accounts.

Two-fifths of the internists reported having worked with a financial planner. Of the nearly three fourths of responding internists who share finances with a spouse or partner, a few more than half pool resources.

In the world before COVID-19, 31% of internists reported significant financial losses over the previous year, most because of bad investments or problems relating to their practice. Financial losses since that time obviously have another predominant cause – the direct and ripple effects of the pandemic.

As of July 22, primary care providers reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume, according to Travis Singleton, senior vice president of Merritt Hawkins, a physician placement and recruiting company. Some practitioners have closed their physical offices because patient demand has plummeted and nonessential office procedures and exams have been postponed or canceled. The use of telemedicine has soared.

Medscape’s Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, and the larger report from which it was derived, may come to serve as a marker between two very different financial worlds for clinical medicine.

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

Internists continue to fall at the low end of the earnings and net worth spectrum for medical fields, according to the Medscape Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The results are from a larger survey that tracked physicians’ efforts to reduce or eliminate debt, save, invest, purchase property, and prepare for retirement. The annual survey was completed just as the COVID-19 pandemic was taking hold, and the findings provide a baseline against which to view the effects of the pandemic, which turned the lives of many physicians upside down.

Conducted from Oct. 4, 2019, until Feb. 10, 2020, the survey represents 17,461 physicians from 29 areas of medicine, including family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
 

Earnings and net worth

Internists earned on average $251,000 annually, sixth from the bottom of the list and approximately half the amount of the most lucrative specialty, orthopedics. The annual salary increased from $243,000 in 2019.

The average annual salary for internists represents a 2.5% increase, compared with the 1.5% increase for specialists, whose annual income rose from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 in 2020.

The low earnings for internists are echoed in the findings for net worth: 58% of internists have a net worth of less than $1 million, 37% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% have more than $5 million. For comparison, half of all physicians have a net worth of less than $1 million, 42% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 8% have over $5 million.

About 40% of internists indicated that their net worth was less than $500,000, which is the fourth highest of the 29 medical fields surveyed. About 44% of pediatricians, 46% of family practitioners, and 30% of ob.gyns. also reported their net worth at less than $500,000, so the primary care providers share low net worth compared with their colleagues. About 41% of neurologists reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Only 5% of internists reported a net worth of more than $5 million. The specialties with the most physicians with net worth exceeding $5 million are orthopedists, at 19%, and plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists, each at 16%.

Gender disparity in net worth appears to be lower among internists than in other fields. Among all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth in excess of $1 million, but among internists, 46% of men and 36% of women did so. About 64% of the internists who took the survey are men, and 34% are women.

Higher net worth tracks clearly with age group, as expected in light of diminishing debt over time and an accumulation of wealth.
 

Expenses

The top three expenses that internists face are mortgage on primary residence (60%), car loans (36%), and credit card debt (26%); 12% of respondents reported no debt or expenses. Among all physicians, the breakdown of expenses by category is very similar to that for internists.

Paying off school loans affects 24% of internists, which was in the middle of the 29 physician groups. The percentage ranges from physical medicine and rehabilitation at 34% to rheumatology at 15%.

About 42% of internists have a mortgage of less than $300,000, and 30% have no mortgage at all. Figures are similar for all physicians.

Internists are apparently savers and not spenders. Only 8% reported living above their means; 39% indicated that they live below their means. These figures are similar for all physicians who responded to the survey.

About 60% of internists put more than $1,000 a month into tax-deferred accounts. Most internists also contribute to taxable savings accounts, which might reflect the fact that they had contributed the maximum amount to tax-deferred accounts.

Two-fifths of the internists reported having worked with a financial planner. Of the nearly three fourths of responding internists who share finances with a spouse or partner, a few more than half pool resources.

In the world before COVID-19, 31% of internists reported significant financial losses over the previous year, most because of bad investments or problems relating to their practice. Financial losses since that time obviously have another predominant cause – the direct and ripple effects of the pandemic.

As of July 22, primary care providers reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume, according to Travis Singleton, senior vice president of Merritt Hawkins, a physician placement and recruiting company. Some practitioners have closed their physical offices because patient demand has plummeted and nonessential office procedures and exams have been postponed or canceled. The use of telemedicine has soared.

Medscape’s Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, and the larger report from which it was derived, may come to serve as a marker between two very different financial worlds for clinical medicine.

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

Internists continue to fall at the low end of the earnings and net worth spectrum for medical fields, according to the Medscape Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The results are from a larger survey that tracked physicians’ efforts to reduce or eliminate debt, save, invest, purchase property, and prepare for retirement. The annual survey was completed just as the COVID-19 pandemic was taking hold, and the findings provide a baseline against which to view the effects of the pandemic, which turned the lives of many physicians upside down.

Conducted from Oct. 4, 2019, until Feb. 10, 2020, the survey represents 17,461 physicians from 29 areas of medicine, including family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology.
 

Earnings and net worth

Internists earned on average $251,000 annually, sixth from the bottom of the list and approximately half the amount of the most lucrative specialty, orthopedics. The annual salary increased from $243,000 in 2019.

The average annual salary for internists represents a 2.5% increase, compared with the 1.5% increase for specialists, whose annual income rose from $341,000 in 2019 to $346,000 in 2020.

The low earnings for internists are echoed in the findings for net worth: 58% of internists have a net worth of less than $1 million, 37% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 5% have more than $5 million. For comparison, half of all physicians have a net worth of less than $1 million, 42% have between $1 million and $5 million, and 8% have over $5 million.

About 40% of internists indicated that their net worth was less than $500,000, which is the fourth highest of the 29 medical fields surveyed. About 44% of pediatricians, 46% of family practitioners, and 30% of ob.gyns. also reported their net worth at less than $500,000, so the primary care providers share low net worth compared with their colleagues. About 41% of neurologists reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Only 5% of internists reported a net worth of more than $5 million. The specialties with the most physicians with net worth exceeding $5 million are orthopedists, at 19%, and plastic surgeons and gastroenterologists, each at 16%.

Gender disparity in net worth appears to be lower among internists than in other fields. Among all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth in excess of $1 million, but among internists, 46% of men and 36% of women did so. About 64% of the internists who took the survey are men, and 34% are women.

Higher net worth tracks clearly with age group, as expected in light of diminishing debt over time and an accumulation of wealth.
 

Expenses

The top three expenses that internists face are mortgage on primary residence (60%), car loans (36%), and credit card debt (26%); 12% of respondents reported no debt or expenses. Among all physicians, the breakdown of expenses by category is very similar to that for internists.

Paying off school loans affects 24% of internists, which was in the middle of the 29 physician groups. The percentage ranges from physical medicine and rehabilitation at 34% to rheumatology at 15%.

About 42% of internists have a mortgage of less than $300,000, and 30% have no mortgage at all. Figures are similar for all physicians.

Internists are apparently savers and not spenders. Only 8% reported living above their means; 39% indicated that they live below their means. These figures are similar for all physicians who responded to the survey.

About 60% of internists put more than $1,000 a month into tax-deferred accounts. Most internists also contribute to taxable savings accounts, which might reflect the fact that they had contributed the maximum amount to tax-deferred accounts.

Two-fifths of the internists reported having worked with a financial planner. Of the nearly three fourths of responding internists who share finances with a spouse or partner, a few more than half pool resources.

In the world before COVID-19, 31% of internists reported significant financial losses over the previous year, most because of bad investments or problems relating to their practice. Financial losses since that time obviously have another predominant cause – the direct and ripple effects of the pandemic.

As of July 22, primary care providers reported a 55% decrease in revenue and a 20%-30% decrease in patient volume, according to Travis Singleton, senior vice president of Merritt Hawkins, a physician placement and recruiting company. Some practitioners have closed their physical offices because patient demand has plummeted and nonessential office procedures and exams have been postponed or canceled. The use of telemedicine has soared.

Medscape’s Internist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020, and the larger report from which it was derived, may come to serve as a marker between two very different financial worlds for clinical medicine.

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

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

doomu/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References

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

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

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

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

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

doomu/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References

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

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

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

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

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

doomu/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

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

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

Little evidence available

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significantly improved scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

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

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

Little evidence available

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significantly improved scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

However, another expert urged prudence when interpreting the findings.

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

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

Little evidence available

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significantly improved scores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most U.S. oncologists live within in their means and save their money, and a large proportion have a net worth of between $1 million and $5 million, according to the new Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2020.

The average annual income for oncologists surveyed was $377,000, which was 5% higher than the $359,000 reported for 2018. This put oncologists in eleventh place among 29 specialties.

However, this information was obtained prior to February 11, 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the United States, and the financial situation has changed for many physicians.

For example, primary care physicians have reported a 55% decrease in revenue along with a 20% to 30% reduction in patient volume. The decline has even led some to shutter their physical offices, according to the larger survey of all physicians, the Medscape Physician Debt and Net Worth Report 2020. This full survey included 17, 461 physicians and represented 30 specialties.

Physicians in specialty practices may be facing even greater reductions. “Specialists are currently having more troubles than PCPs because they’re largely dependent on elective cases, which can’t be directly addressed by telemedicine,” commented Joel Greenwald, MD, CEO of Greenwald Wealth Management, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, in the survey.

Community oncology clinics and practices have reported a substantial decline in office visits and new patients because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even before the pandemic, clinics had been closing in recent years as a result of being acquired, merging, or because of financial struggles, although that trend has been plateauing, according to the latest report from the Community Oncology Alliance.
 

Oncologists’ net worth

With regard to net worth, 42% of the oncologists surveyed reported having assets totaling from $1 million to $5 million, which is about the same for physicians in general. Only 15% reported a net worth of $5 million or higher; a quarter reported a net worth of less than $500,000.

Wealth is more evenly divided when it comes to gender in comparison with other specialties. For all physicians, 56% of men and 39% of women reported a net worth of more than $1 million. For oncologists, that ratio is 59% of men and 54% of women.

Not surprisingly, net worth also increased by age. Only about a quarter (27%) of oncologists younger than age 45 reported a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, compared to 48% aged 45-54 and 56% of physicians aged 55-64. This makes sense, inasmuch as earnings generally increase over time and early-career debt is paid down. However, net worth does appear to decline somewhat after the age of 65, presumably because of a decrease in income on retirement.
 

Debts and expenses

For debts and expenses that are currently being paid off, mortgage on a primary residence (59%) topped the list. More than half of oncologists reported living in a home that is 3,000 sq ft or larger, and nearly half (49%) have a mortgage of $300,000 or higher. About a third of the oncologists surveyed have no mortgage or one that has been paid off.

Car loan payments (35%) and college education/medical school loans (25%) were the second and third most common sources of debt. As compared with other specialties, oncologists land right in the middle of those still paying off school loans. Only 15% reported that they had no debts or expenses to be paid off.
 

Savings and living within one’s means

The average American has four credit cards. About half of oncologists surveyed reported having four or fewer, although about a fifth (22%) have seven or more. But the vast majority reported living within their means (49%) or below their means (46%). Only 6% reported living above their means.

Surveyed oncologists also reported putting money aside in a tax-deferred retirement account or college savings account. Almost half (48%) are putting aside more than $2000 every month, and 28% save from $1000 to $2000. A small percentage (8%) reported not doing this on a regular basis.

A smaller percentage (40%) responded that they put more than $2000 a month into a taxable retirement or college savings account; 18% reported not doing this on a regular basis. More than two thirds also reported either having a written budget or a mental one for their personal expenses.

In 2019, most oncologists (77%) did not experience a financial loss. For those who did, bad investments on the stock market (14%) were the main cause. A smaller number reported real estate losses, problems with their practice, or job loss.

Nearly half (49%) reported that they currently work with a financial planner or have done so in the past.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.