Despite “compelling evidence” that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) can help people recover from opioid addiction, methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are woefully underused. A study cofunded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that following an overdose, less than one-third of patients were provided any medication for opioid use disorder (OUD).

“A great part of the tragedy of this opioid crisis is that…we now possess effective treatment strategies that could address it and save many lives, yet tens of thousands of people die each year because they have not received these treatments,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of NIDA.

The researchers analyzed data from 17,568 adults in Massachusetts who survived an opioid overdose between 2012 and 2014. Opioid overdose deaths declined by 59% among patients who received methadone and 38% for those who received buprenorphine over the 12 months of follow-up, compared with patients who did not receive treatment.

Another disturbing study finding: 34% of people who had an overdose were nonetheless given ≥ 1 prescriptions for opioid painkillers over the next 12 months, and 26% were prescribed benzodiazepines.

Despite “compelling evidence” that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) can help people recover from opioid addiction, methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are woefully underused. A study cofunded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that following an overdose, less than one-third of patients were provided any medication for opioid use disorder (OUD).

“A great part of the tragedy of this opioid crisis is that…we now possess effective treatment strategies that could address it and save many lives, yet tens of thousands of people die each year because they have not received these treatments,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of NIDA.

The researchers analyzed data from 17,568 adults in Massachusetts who survived an opioid overdose between 2012 and 2014. Opioid overdose deaths declined by 59% among patients who received methadone and 38% for those who received buprenorphine over the 12 months of follow-up, compared with patients who did not receive treatment.

Another disturbing study finding: 34% of people who had an overdose were nonetheless given ≥ 1 prescriptions for opioid painkillers over the next 12 months, and 26% were prescribed benzodiazepines.

Despite “compelling evidence” that medication-assisted treatment (MAT) can help people recover from opioid addiction, methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are woefully underused. A study cofunded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found that following an overdose, less than one-third of patients were provided any medication for opioid use disorder (OUD).

“A great part of the tragedy of this opioid crisis is that…we now possess effective treatment strategies that could address it and save many lives, yet tens of thousands of people die each year because they have not received these treatments,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of NIDA.

The researchers analyzed data from 17,568 adults in Massachusetts who survived an opioid overdose between 2012 and 2014. Opioid overdose deaths declined by 59% among patients who received methadone and 38% for those who received buprenorphine over the 12 months of follow-up, compared with patients who did not receive treatment.

Another disturbing study finding: 34% of people who had an overdose were nonetheless given ≥ 1 prescriptions for opioid painkillers over the next 12 months, and 26% were prescribed benzodiazepines.

Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening

We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.

The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.

It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.^1,2

We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.³

D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey

Dr. Wright responds

I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening

We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.

The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.

It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.^1,2

We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.³

D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey

Dr. Wright responds

I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Diagnostics company asserts medical and pathology groups prefer cotesting for cervical cancer screening

We are concerned about Dr. Wright’s March 2018 gynecologic cancer coverage of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines for cervical cancer.

The article suggests that draft USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines issued in September 2017 are final when in fact that is not the case. The USPSTF issued draft guidelines in late 2017, butfinal publication is pending USPSTFrevisions in response to submitted public comments. This means that, for now, existing USPSTF guidelines remain in place, and these guidelines clearly recommend cotesting (high-risk HPV and cytology/Pap) in women 30 to 65 years of age every 5 years as an appropriate screening modality, in alignment with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Cancer Society, among others.

It is also notable that the proposed USPSTF guidelines have been met with sharp resistance. ACOG, as well as several organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, the American Society for Cytotechnology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Academy of Cytology, and the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, cite concerns with the proposed USPSTF guidelines and continue to argue in favor of cotesting in women 30 to 65 years of age.^1,2

We also fear that Dr. Wright may have provided data out of context. For instance, he notes that the USPSTF, in its draft guidelines, found that cotesting increased the number of follow-up tests but did not increase detection of CIN3+ in a decision model. Yet, the USPSTF analysis overrelied on research from European populations (not representative of the US cervical cancer experience) and excluded peer-reviewed data of women in the United States, which clearly shows that HPV-Pap together catches more cervical cancers than either Pap or HPV alone.³

D.P. Alagia, MD, and Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, MBA
Quest Diagnostics
Madison, New Jersey

Dr. Wright responds

I thank Drs. Alagia and Kaufman for their interest in the work and their comments regarding the USPSTF cervical cancer guidelines. As stated in the article, the USPSTF recommendations are currently in draft form and subject to revision based on public comment. The guidelines are a synthesis of best available evidence and are meant to weigh the benefits and harms of various cervical cancer screening strategies. The recommendations are based in part on simulation modeling that incorporates available evidence and projects the long-term effects of multiple rounds of screening. While the decision models incorporated a large amount of data and were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses, as with all decision analyses, they are limited by the underlying assumptions utilized in the model. Over the last 2 decades, screening practices for cervical cancer have dramatically shifted. Highlighting the USPSTF draft guidelines was meant to raise awareness among clinicians and policy makers of the evolving role of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in combination with cytology, as a screening modality for cervical cancer.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Image by Tom Ellenberger

New research suggests the Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway plays a key role in repairing double-strand breaks (DSBs) created by CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.

Researchers said they found that Cas9-induced single-strand template repair requires the FA pathway, and the protein FANCD2 localizes to Cas9-induced DSBs.

The team said this research provides insight into why CRISPR-Cas9 does not produce equal success in all cells.

Furthermore, the work might help researchers boost the efficiency with which cells insert new DNA into the genome and generally tweak CRISPR-Cas9 editing to get the desired outcome.

“If you want to treat sickle cell anemia, your chances of success are inextricably tied to the efficiency with which you can replace the mutated sickle cell gene with the correct one,” said study author Chris Richardson, PhD, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, but now at Spotlight Therapeutics in Hayward, California.

“If you harvest a million cells from a patient and you have a 10% insertion rate, that is not as good as if you have 30% to 40%. Being able to manipulate those cells to increase the frequency of this process, called homology-directed repair, is exciting.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues described this work in Nature Genetics.

CRISPR relies on DNA repair

The researchers noted that CRISPR-Cas9 creates targeted DSBs, and it’s up to the cell to repair the DNA.

This can happen in 2 ways. Enzymes can stitch the dangling ends back together, which often results in one or more bases being added or deleted, disrupting the function of the gene.

Alternatively, other enzymes can patch the break with a single strand of DNA that matches the DNA sequence upstream and downstream of the cut. A complementary DNA strand is created to complete the double-strand repair.

The former method, called non-homologous end-joining, appears to be the most common outcome after CRISPR cutting.

The latter method, homology-directed repair, happens more frequently in some cells than others and requires the presence of DNA that can be used to patch the break. Researchers often supply a single-stranded piece of DNA and hope the cell uses it to replace the faulty sequence with the new one.

Both processes are a bit mysterious, however, and no one knows why some cells readily patch in DNA while others do so infrequently.

“The enthusiasm for using CRISPR-Cas9 for medical or synthetic biology applications is great, but no one really knows what happens after you put it into cells,” Dr Richardson said. “It goes and creates these breaks, and you count on the cells to fix them, but people don’t really understand how that process works.”

To find out which DNA repair enzymes are critical to homology-directed repair after CRISPR cutting, Dr Richardson and his colleagues used a technique called CRISPR interference. They knocked out, one at a time, more than 2000 genes known or suspected to be involved in DNA repair.

The researchers were surprised to find that many of the genes that proved important—homology-directed repair dropped dramatically when they were silenced—were involved in the FA pathway.

FA pathway

The FA pathway was largely understood to repair DNA interstrand crosslinks, where a nucleotide on one strand of DNA bonds tightly with a nucleotide on the adjacent strand, interfering with DNA replication and often killing the cell.

“Based on our work, we believe that the Fanconi anemia pathway plays a major role in fixing other types of lesions as well, but is best understood as the pathway that repairs double-strand breaks,” Dr Richardson said. “After Cas9 editing, the Fanconi anemia pathway is required if you want to insert new DNA.”

The importance of the FA pathway in repairing DSBs casts doubt on some planned CRISPR treatments for Fanconi anemia itself.

Without an active FA pathway, cells may not be able to replace their mutated genes with normal genes after Cas9 makes a cut. In fact, the activity level of the FA pathway may affect how efficiently CRISPR can insert DNA in a specific cell.

The researchers concluded that, while end-joining is the default repair mechanism after a DSB, the FA pathway competes with it, and that higher activity results in more homology-directed repair and less end-joining.

Dr Richardson and his colleagues also found that 1 of the 21 proteins in the FA pathway, FANCD2, always homes in on the site of the DSB created by CRISPR-Cas9. This suggests FANCD2 plays an important role in regulating the insertion of new DNA at the cut site.

The researchers therefore believe FANCD2 could be tweaked to boost the frequency with which a cell inserts DNA via homology-directed repair.

“Also, since FANCD2 localizes to the site of Cas9 breaks, you can use FANCD2 to map where Cas9 is cutting in any cell type,” Dr Richardson said. “If you edit a population of cells and you want to know where the on- and off-target cuts are, you can just map where FANCD2 was found in the genome and you can find the cuts.”

Image by Tom Ellenberger

New research suggests the Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway plays a key role in repairing double-strand breaks (DSBs) created by CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.

Researchers said they found that Cas9-induced single-strand template repair requires the FA pathway, and the protein FANCD2 localizes to Cas9-induced DSBs.

The team said this research provides insight into why CRISPR-Cas9 does not produce equal success in all cells.

Furthermore, the work might help researchers boost the efficiency with which cells insert new DNA into the genome and generally tweak CRISPR-Cas9 editing to get the desired outcome.

“If you want to treat sickle cell anemia, your chances of success are inextricably tied to the efficiency with which you can replace the mutated sickle cell gene with the correct one,” said study author Chris Richardson, PhD, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, but now at Spotlight Therapeutics in Hayward, California.

“If you harvest a million cells from a patient and you have a 10% insertion rate, that is not as good as if you have 30% to 40%. Being able to manipulate those cells to increase the frequency of this process, called homology-directed repair, is exciting.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues described this work in Nature Genetics.

CRISPR relies on DNA repair

The researchers noted that CRISPR-Cas9 creates targeted DSBs, and it’s up to the cell to repair the DNA.

This can happen in 2 ways. Enzymes can stitch the dangling ends back together, which often results in one or more bases being added or deleted, disrupting the function of the gene.

Alternatively, other enzymes can patch the break with a single strand of DNA that matches the DNA sequence upstream and downstream of the cut. A complementary DNA strand is created to complete the double-strand repair.

The former method, called non-homologous end-joining, appears to be the most common outcome after CRISPR cutting.

The latter method, homology-directed repair, happens more frequently in some cells than others and requires the presence of DNA that can be used to patch the break. Researchers often supply a single-stranded piece of DNA and hope the cell uses it to replace the faulty sequence with the new one.

Both processes are a bit mysterious, however, and no one knows why some cells readily patch in DNA while others do so infrequently.

“The enthusiasm for using CRISPR-Cas9 for medical or synthetic biology applications is great, but no one really knows what happens after you put it into cells,” Dr Richardson said. “It goes and creates these breaks, and you count on the cells to fix them, but people don’t really understand how that process works.”

To find out which DNA repair enzymes are critical to homology-directed repair after CRISPR cutting, Dr Richardson and his colleagues used a technique called CRISPR interference. They knocked out, one at a time, more than 2000 genes known or suspected to be involved in DNA repair.

The researchers were surprised to find that many of the genes that proved important—homology-directed repair dropped dramatically when they were silenced—were involved in the FA pathway.

FA pathway

The FA pathway was largely understood to repair DNA interstrand crosslinks, where a nucleotide on one strand of DNA bonds tightly with a nucleotide on the adjacent strand, interfering with DNA replication and often killing the cell.

“Based on our work, we believe that the Fanconi anemia pathway plays a major role in fixing other types of lesions as well, but is best understood as the pathway that repairs double-strand breaks,” Dr Richardson said. “After Cas9 editing, the Fanconi anemia pathway is required if you want to insert new DNA.”

The importance of the FA pathway in repairing DSBs casts doubt on some planned CRISPR treatments for Fanconi anemia itself.

Without an active FA pathway, cells may not be able to replace their mutated genes with normal genes after Cas9 makes a cut. In fact, the activity level of the FA pathway may affect how efficiently CRISPR can insert DNA in a specific cell.

The researchers concluded that, while end-joining is the default repair mechanism after a DSB, the FA pathway competes with it, and that higher activity results in more homology-directed repair and less end-joining.

Dr Richardson and his colleagues also found that 1 of the 21 proteins in the FA pathway, FANCD2, always homes in on the site of the DSB created by CRISPR-Cas9. This suggests FANCD2 plays an important role in regulating the insertion of new DNA at the cut site.

The researchers therefore believe FANCD2 could be tweaked to boost the frequency with which a cell inserts DNA via homology-directed repair.

“Also, since FANCD2 localizes to the site of Cas9 breaks, you can use FANCD2 to map where Cas9 is cutting in any cell type,” Dr Richardson said. “If you edit a population of cells and you want to know where the on- and off-target cuts are, you can just map where FANCD2 was found in the genome and you can find the cuts.”

Image by Tom Ellenberger

New research suggests the Fanconi anemia (FA) pathway plays a key role in repairing double-strand breaks (DSBs) created by CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.

Researchers said they found that Cas9-induced single-strand template repair requires the FA pathway, and the protein FANCD2 localizes to Cas9-induced DSBs.

The team said this research provides insight into why CRISPR-Cas9 does not produce equal success in all cells.

Furthermore, the work might help researchers boost the efficiency with which cells insert new DNA into the genome and generally tweak CRISPR-Cas9 editing to get the desired outcome.

“If you want to treat sickle cell anemia, your chances of success are inextricably tied to the efficiency with which you can replace the mutated sickle cell gene with the correct one,” said study author Chris Richardson, PhD, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, but now at Spotlight Therapeutics in Hayward, California.

“If you harvest a million cells from a patient and you have a 10% insertion rate, that is not as good as if you have 30% to 40%. Being able to manipulate those cells to increase the frequency of this process, called homology-directed repair, is exciting.”

Dr Richardson and his colleagues described this work in Nature Genetics.

CRISPR relies on DNA repair

The researchers noted that CRISPR-Cas9 creates targeted DSBs, and it’s up to the cell to repair the DNA.

This can happen in 2 ways. Enzymes can stitch the dangling ends back together, which often results in one or more bases being added or deleted, disrupting the function of the gene.

Alternatively, other enzymes can patch the break with a single strand of DNA that matches the DNA sequence upstream and downstream of the cut. A complementary DNA strand is created to complete the double-strand repair.

The former method, called non-homologous end-joining, appears to be the most common outcome after CRISPR cutting.

The latter method, homology-directed repair, happens more frequently in some cells than others and requires the presence of DNA that can be used to patch the break. Researchers often supply a single-stranded piece of DNA and hope the cell uses it to replace the faulty sequence with the new one.

Both processes are a bit mysterious, however, and no one knows why some cells readily patch in DNA while others do so infrequently.

“The enthusiasm for using CRISPR-Cas9 for medical or synthetic biology applications is great, but no one really knows what happens after you put it into cells,” Dr Richardson said. “It goes and creates these breaks, and you count on the cells to fix them, but people don’t really understand how that process works.”

To find out which DNA repair enzymes are critical to homology-directed repair after CRISPR cutting, Dr Richardson and his colleagues used a technique called CRISPR interference. They knocked out, one at a time, more than 2000 genes known or suspected to be involved in DNA repair.

The researchers were surprised to find that many of the genes that proved important—homology-directed repair dropped dramatically when they were silenced—were involved in the FA pathway.

FA pathway

The FA pathway was largely understood to repair DNA interstrand crosslinks, where a nucleotide on one strand of DNA bonds tightly with a nucleotide on the adjacent strand, interfering with DNA replication and often killing the cell.

“Based on our work, we believe that the Fanconi anemia pathway plays a major role in fixing other types of lesions as well, but is best understood as the pathway that repairs double-strand breaks,” Dr Richardson said. “After Cas9 editing, the Fanconi anemia pathway is required if you want to insert new DNA.”

The importance of the FA pathway in repairing DSBs casts doubt on some planned CRISPR treatments for Fanconi anemia itself.

Without an active FA pathway, cells may not be able to replace their mutated genes with normal genes after Cas9 makes a cut. In fact, the activity level of the FA pathway may affect how efficiently CRISPR can insert DNA in a specific cell.

The researchers concluded that, while end-joining is the default repair mechanism after a DSB, the FA pathway competes with it, and that higher activity results in more homology-directed repair and less end-joining.

Dr Richardson and his colleagues also found that 1 of the 21 proteins in the FA pathway, FANCD2, always homes in on the site of the DSB created by CRISPR-Cas9. This suggests FANCD2 plays an important role in regulating the insertion of new DNA at the cut site.

The researchers therefore believe FANCD2 could be tweaked to boost the frequency with which a cell inserts DNA via homology-directed repair.

“Also, since FANCD2 localizes to the site of Cas9 breaks, you can use FANCD2 to map where Cas9 is cutting in any cell type,” Dr Richardson said. “If you edit a population of cells and you want to know where the on- and off-target cuts are, you can just map where FANCD2 was found in the genome and you can find the cuts.”

Photo from Flickr

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to SRF231 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

SRF231 is a fully human antibody that inhibits the activity of CD47, a protein that is overexpressed on many cancer cells and prevents them from being engulfed and eliminated by macrophages.

Surface Oncology, the company developing SRF231, is currently conducting a phase 1 trial (NCT03512340) of SRF231 in patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.

Preclinical research on SRF231 was presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

SRF231 demonstrated “potent” activity against hematologic malignancies, according to researchers.

The team said SRF231 promoted macrophage-mediated phagocytic clearance of several hematologic primary tumor samples and cell lines in vitro.

SRF231 also demonstrated activity in murine xenograft models of hematologic malignancies. Specifically, the researchers observed “profound tumor growth inhibition” in models of MM, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma.

The team said SRF231 demonstrated activity when given alone or in combination with opsonizing antibodies.

Results also showed that SRF231 did not induce hemagglutination or phagocytosis of red blood cells in vitro.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Photo from Flickr

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to SRF231 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

SRF231 is a fully human antibody that inhibits the activity of CD47, a protein that is overexpressed on many cancer cells and prevents them from being engulfed and eliminated by macrophages.

Surface Oncology, the company developing SRF231, is currently conducting a phase 1 trial (NCT03512340) of SRF231 in patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.

Preclinical research on SRF231 was presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

SRF231 demonstrated “potent” activity against hematologic malignancies, according to researchers.

The team said SRF231 promoted macrophage-mediated phagocytic clearance of several hematologic primary tumor samples and cell lines in vitro.

SRF231 also demonstrated activity in murine xenograft models of hematologic malignancies. Specifically, the researchers observed “profound tumor growth inhibition” in models of MM, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma.

The team said SRF231 demonstrated activity when given alone or in combination with opsonizing antibodies.

Results also showed that SRF231 did not induce hemagglutination or phagocytosis of red blood cells in vitro.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Photo from Flickr

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to SRF231 for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

SRF231 is a fully human antibody that inhibits the activity of CD47, a protein that is overexpressed on many cancer cells and prevents them from being engulfed and eliminated by macrophages.

Surface Oncology, the company developing SRF231, is currently conducting a phase 1 trial (NCT03512340) of SRF231 in patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies.

Preclinical research on SRF231 was presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.

SRF231 demonstrated “potent” activity against hematologic malignancies, according to researchers.

The team said SRF231 promoted macrophage-mediated phagocytic clearance of several hematologic primary tumor samples and cell lines in vitro.

SRF231 also demonstrated activity in murine xenograft models of hematologic malignancies. Specifically, the researchers observed “profound tumor growth inhibition” in models of MM, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and Burkitt lymphoma.

The team said SRF231 demonstrated activity when given alone or in combination with opsonizing antibodies.

Results also showed that SRF231 did not induce hemagglutination or phagocytosis of red blood cells in vitro.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

Orphan designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

Micrograph showing thalassemia

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Deferiprone Lipomed to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major.

Deferiprone Lipomed is a generic version of the iron chelating agent Ferriprox, which has been authorized in the European Union since August 1999.

According to the CHMP, studies have shown that Deferiprone Lipomed is of satisfactory quality and bioequivalent to Ferriprox.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Deferiprone Lipomed will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Deferiprone Lipomed will be available as 500-mg film-coated tablets.

The drug will be authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major when current chelation therapy is contraindicated or inadequate
• In combination with another chelator in patients with thalassemia major when monotherapy with any iron chelator is ineffective or when prevention or treatment of life-threatening consequences of iron overload justifies rapid or intensive correction.

According to the prescribing information for Ferriprox, the combination of iron chelators should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients should be monitored for response and adverse events.

Fatalities and life-threatening situations (caused by agranulocytosis) have been reported with the combination of deferiprone and deferoxamine.

Combination therapy is not recommended when monotherapy with either chelator is adequate or when serum ferritin falls below 500 μg/l. Additionally, there are limited data on the combined use of Ferriprox and deferasirox.

The applicant for Deferiprone Lipomed is Lipomed GmbH.

Micrograph showing thalassemia

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Deferiprone Lipomed to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major.

Deferiprone Lipomed is a generic version of the iron chelating agent Ferriprox, which has been authorized in the European Union since August 1999.

According to the CHMP, studies have shown that Deferiprone Lipomed is of satisfactory quality and bioequivalent to Ferriprox.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Deferiprone Lipomed will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Deferiprone Lipomed will be available as 500-mg film-coated tablets.

The drug will be authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major when current chelation therapy is contraindicated or inadequate
• In combination with another chelator in patients with thalassemia major when monotherapy with any iron chelator is ineffective or when prevention or treatment of life-threatening consequences of iron overload justifies rapid or intensive correction.

According to the prescribing information for Ferriprox, the combination of iron chelators should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients should be monitored for response and adverse events.

Fatalities and life-threatening situations (caused by agranulocytosis) have been reported with the combination of deferiprone and deferoxamine.

Combination therapy is not recommended when monotherapy with either chelator is adequate or when serum ferritin falls below 500 μg/l. Additionally, there are limited data on the combined use of Ferriprox and deferasirox.

The applicant for Deferiprone Lipomed is Lipomed GmbH.

Micrograph showing thalassemia

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Deferiprone Lipomed to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major.

Deferiprone Lipomed is a generic version of the iron chelating agent Ferriprox, which has been authorized in the European Union since August 1999.

According to the CHMP, studies have shown that Deferiprone Lipomed is of satisfactory quality and bioequivalent to Ferriprox.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Deferiprone Lipomed will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Deferiprone Lipomed will be available as 500-mg film-coated tablets.

The drug will be authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy to treat iron overload in patients with thalassemia major when current chelation therapy is contraindicated or inadequate
• In combination with another chelator in patients with thalassemia major when monotherapy with any iron chelator is ineffective or when prevention or treatment of life-threatening consequences of iron overload justifies rapid or intensive correction.

According to the prescribing information for Ferriprox, the combination of iron chelators should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients should be monitored for response and adverse events.

Fatalities and life-threatening situations (caused by agranulocytosis) have been reported with the combination of deferiprone and deferoxamine.

Combination therapy is not recommended when monotherapy with either chelator is adequate or when serum ferritin falls below 500 μg/l. Additionally, there are limited data on the combined use of Ferriprox and deferasirox.

The applicant for Deferiprone Lipomed is Lipomed GmbH.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Lenalidomide Accord as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

Lenalidomide Accord is a generic version of the immunomodulatory agent Revlimid, which has been authorized in the European Union since June 2007.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Lenalidomide Accord and its bioequivalence to Revlimid.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Lenalidomide Accord will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Lenalidomide Accord will be available as capsules (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg) and authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of adults with newly diagnosed MM who have undergone autologous stem cell transplant
• In combination with melphalan and prednisone followed by lenalidomide maintenance in adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant
• In combination with dexamethasone to treat MM in adults who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

The applicant for Lenalidomide Accord is Accord Healthcare Limited.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Lenalidomide Accord as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

Lenalidomide Accord is a generic version of the immunomodulatory agent Revlimid, which has been authorized in the European Union since June 2007.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Lenalidomide Accord and its bioequivalence to Revlimid.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Lenalidomide Accord will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Lenalidomide Accord will be available as capsules (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg) and authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of adults with newly diagnosed MM who have undergone autologous stem cell transplant
• In combination with melphalan and prednisone followed by lenalidomide maintenance in adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant
• In combination with dexamethasone to treat MM in adults who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

The applicant for Lenalidomide Accord is Accord Healthcare Limited.

Photo courtesy of Celgene

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval for Lenalidomide Accord as a treatment for multiple myeloma (MM).

Lenalidomide Accord is a generic version of the immunomodulatory agent Revlimid, which has been authorized in the European Union since June 2007.

The CHMP said studies have demonstrated the satisfactory quality of Lenalidomide Accord and its bioequivalence to Revlimid.

The CHMP’s recommendation for Lenalidomide Accord will be reviewed by the European Commission, which has the authority to approve medicines for use in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The European Commission usually makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.

If approved, Lenalidomide Accord will be available as capsules (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg) and authorized for the following uses:

• As monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of adults with newly diagnosed MM who have undergone autologous stem cell transplant
• In combination with melphalan and prednisone followed by lenalidomide maintenance in adults with previously untreated MM who are not eligible for transplant
• In combination with dexamethasone to treat MM in adults who have received at least 1 prior therapy.

The applicant for Lenalidomide Accord is Accord Healthcare Limited.

Is catatonia a rare condition that belongs in the history books, or is it more prevalent than we think? If we think we don’t see it often, how will we recognize it? And how do we treat it? This article reviews the evolution of our understanding of the phenomenology and therapy of this interesting and complex condition.

History of the concept

In 1874, Kahlbaum^1,2 was the first to propose a syndrome of motor dysfunction characterized by mutism, immobility, staring gaze, negativism, stereotyped behavior, waxy flexibility, and verbal stereotypies that he called catatonia. Kahlbaum conceptualized catatonia as a distinct disorder,³ but Kraepelin reformulated it as a feature of dementia praecox.⁴ Although Bleuler felt that catatonia could occur in other psychiatric disorders and in normal people,⁴ he also included catatonia as a marker of schizophrenia, where it remained from DSM-I through DSM-IV.³ As was believed to be true of schizophrenia, Kraepelin considered catatonia to be characterized by poor prognosis, whereas Bleuler eliminated poor prognosis as a criterion for catatonia.³

In DSM-IV, catatonia was still a subtype of schizophrenia, but for the first time it was expanded diagnostically to become both a specifier in mood disorders, and a syndrome resulting from a general medical condition.^5,6 In DSM-5, catatonic schizophrenia was deleted, and catatonia became a specifier for 10 disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders, and general medical conditions.^3,5-9 In ICD-10, however, catatonia is still associated primarily with schizophrenia.¹⁰

A wide range of presentations

Catatonia is a cyclical syndrome characterized by alterations in motor, behavioral, and vocal signs occurring in the context of medical, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders.⁸ The most common features are immobility, waxy flexibility, stupor, mutism, negativism, echolalia, echopraxia, peculiarities of voluntary movement, and rigidity.^7,11 Features of catatonia that have been repeatedly described through the years are summarized in Table 1.^8,12,13 In general, presentations of catatonia are not specific to any psychiatric or medical etiology.^13,14

Catatonia often is described along a continuum from retarded/stuporous to excited,^14,15 and from benign to malignant.¹³ Examples of these ranges of presentation include^{5,12,13,15-19}:

Stuporous/retarded catatonia (Kahlbaum syndrome) is a primarily negative syndrome in which stupor, mutism, negativism, obsessional slowness, and posturing predominate. Akinetic mutism and coma vigil are sometimes considered to be types of stuporous catatonia, as occasionally are locked-in syndrome and abulia caused by anterior cingulate lesions.

Excited catatonia (hyperkinetic variant, Bell’s mania, oneirophrenia, oneroid state/syndrome, catatonia raptus) is characterized by agitation, combativeness, verbigeration, stereotypies, grimacing, and echo phenomena (echopraxia and echolalia).

Continue to: Malignant (lethal) catatonia

Several specific subtypes of catatonia that may exist anywhere along dimensions of activity and severity also have been described:

Periodic catatonia. In 1908, Kraepelin described a form of periodic catatonia, with rapid shifts from excitement to stupor.⁴ Later, Gjessing described periodic catatonia in schizophrenia and reported success treating it with high doses of thyroid hormone.⁴ Today, periodic catatonia refers to the rapid onset of recurrent, brief hypokinetic or hyperkinetic episodes lasting 4 to 10 days and recurring during the course of weeks to years. Patients often are asymptomatic between episodes except for grimacing, stereotypies, and negativism later in the course.^13,15 At least some forms of periodic catatonia are familial,⁴ with autosomal dominant transmission possibly linked to chromosome 15q15.¹³

A familial form of catatonia has been described that has a poor response to standard therapies (benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy [ECT]), but in view of the high comorbidity of catatonia and bipolar disorder, it is difficult to determine whether this is a separate condition, or a group of patients with bipolar disorder.⁵

Late (ie, late-onset) catatonia is well described in the Japanese literature.¹⁰ Reported primarily in women without a known medical illness or brain disorder, late catatonia begins with prodromal hypochondriacal or depressive symptoms during a stressful situation, followed by unprovoked anxiety and agitation. Some patients develop hallucinations, delusions, and recurrent excitement, along with anxiety and agitation. The next stage involves typical catatonic features (mainly excitement, retardation, negativism, and autonomic disturbance), progressing to stupor, mutism, verbal stereotypies, and negativism, including refusal of food. Most patients have residual symptoms following improvement. A few cases have been noted to remit with ECT, with relapse when treatment was discontinued. Late catatonia has been thought to be associated with late-onset schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or to be an independent entity.

Continue to: Untreated catatonia can have...

Not as rare as you might think

With the shift from inpatient to outpatient care driven by deinstitutionalization, longitudinal close observation became less common, and clinicians got the impression that the dramatic catatonia that was common in the hospital had become rare.³ The impression that catatonia was unimportant was strengthened by expanding industry promotion of antipsychotic medications while ignoring catatonia, for which the industry had no specific treatment.³ With recent research, however, catatonia has been reported in 7% to 38% of adult psychiatric patients, including 9% to 25% of inpatients, 20% to 25% of patients with mania,^3,5 and 20% of patients with major depressive episodes.⁷ Catatonia has been noted in .6% to 18% of adolescent psychiatric inpatients (especially in communication and social disorders programs),^5,8,22 some children,⁵ and 6% to 18% of adult and juvenile patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).²³ In the medical setting, catatonia occurs in 12% to 37% of patients with delirium,^{8,14,17,18,20,24} 7% to 45% of medically ill patients, including those with no psychiatric history,^12,13 and 4% of ICU patients.¹² Several substances have been linked to catatonia; these are discussed later.¹¹ Contrary to earlier impressions, catatonia is more common in mood disorders, particularly mixed bipolar disorder, especially mania,⁵ than in schizophrenia.^7,8,17,25

Pathophysiology/etiology

Conditions associated with catatonia have different features that act through a final common pathway,⁷ possibly related to the neurobiology of an extreme fear response called tonic immobility that has been conserved through evolution.⁸ This mechanism may be mediated by decreased dopamine signaling in basal ganglia, orbitofrontal, and limbic systems, including the hypothalamus and basal forebrain.^3,17,20 Subcortical reduction of dopaminergic neurotransmission appears to be related to reduced GABA_A receptor signaling and dysfunction of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors with glutaminergic excess in striato-cortical or frontal cortico-cortical systems.^13,20,26,27

Up to one-quarter of cases of catatonia are secondary to medical (mostly neurologic) factors or substances.¹⁵Table 2^5,13,15 lists common medical and neurological causes. Medications and substances known to cause catatonia are noted in Table 3.^5,8,13,16,26

Catatonia can be a specifier, or a separate condition

DSM-5 criteria for catatonia are summarized in Table 4.²⁸ With these features, catatonia can be a specifier for depressive, bipolar, or psychotic disorders; a complication of a medical disorder; or another separate diagnosis.⁸ The diagnosis of catatonia in DSM-5 is made when the clinical picture is dominated by ≥3 of the following core features^8,15:

• motoric immobility as evidenced by catalepsy (including waxy flexibility) or stupor
• excessive purposeless motor activity that is not influenced by external stimuli
• extreme negativism or mutism
• peculiarities of voluntary movement such as posturing, stereotyped movements, prominent mannerisms, or prominent grimacing
• echolalia or echopraxia.

Continue to: DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more...

DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more restrictive than DSM-IV criteria. As a result, they exclude a significant number of patients who would be considered catatonic in other systems.²⁹ For example, DSM-5 criteria do not include common features noted in Table 1,^8,12,13 such as rigidity and staring.^14,29 If the diagnosis is not obvious, it might be suspected in the presence of >1 of posturing, automatic obedience, or waxy flexibility, or >2 of echopraxia/echolalia, gegenhalten, negativism, mitgehen, or stereotypy/vergiberation.¹² Clues to catatonia that are not included in formal diagnostic systems and are easily confused with features of psychosis include whispered or robotic speech, uncharacteristic foreign accent, tiptoe walking, hopping, rituals, and odd mannerisms.⁵

There are several catatonia rating scales containing between 14 and 40 items that are useful in diagnosing and following treatment response in catatonia (Table 5^8,13,15,29). Of these, the Kanner Scale is primarily applied in neuropsychiatric settings, while the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) has had the most widespread use. The BFCRS consists of 23 items, the first 14 of which are used as a screening instrument. It requires 2 of its first 14 items to diagnose catatonia, while DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 signs.²⁹ If the diagnosis remains in doubt, a benzodiazepine agonist test can be instructive.^9,12 The presence of catatonia is suggested by significant improvement, ideally assessed prospectively by improvement of BFCRS scores, shortly after administration of a single dose of 1 to 2 mg lorazepam or 5 mg diazepam IV, or 10 mg zolpidem orally. Further evaluation generally consists of a careful medical and psychiatric histories of patient and family, review of all medications, history of substance use with toxicology as indicated, physical examination focusing on autonomic dysregulation, examination for delirium, and laboratory tests as suggested by the history and examination that may include complete blood count, creatine kinase, serum iron, blood urea nitrogen, electrolytes, creatinine, prolactin, anti-NMDA antibodies, thyroid function tests, serology, metabolic panel, human immunodeficiency virus testing, EEG, and neuroimaging.^8,15,16

A complex differential diagnosis

Manifestations of numerous psychiatric and neurologic disorders can mimic or be identical to those of catatonia. The differential diagnosis is complicated by the fact that some of these disorders can cause catatonia, which is then masked by the primary disorder; some disorders (eg, NMS) are forms of catatonia. Table 6^{5,8,12,19,26,30} lists conditions to consider.

Some of these conditions warrant discussion. ASD may have catatonia-like features such as echolalia, echopraxia, excitement, combativeness, grimacing, mutism, logorrhea, verbigeration, catalepsy, mannerisms, rigidity, staring and withdrawal.⁸ Catatonia may also be a stage of deterioration of autism, in which case it is characterized by increases in slowness of movement and speech, reliance on physical or verbal prompting from others, passivity, and lack of motivation.²³ At the same time, catatonic features such as mutism, stereotypic speech, repetitive behavior, echolalia, posturing, mannerisms, purposeless agitation, and rigidity in catatonia can be misinterpreted as signs of ASD.⁸ Catatonia should be suspected as a complication of longstanding ASD in the presence of a consistent, marked change in motor behavior, such as immobility, decreased speech, stupor, excitement, or mixtures or alternations of stupor and excitement.⁸ Freezing while doing something, difficulty crossing lines, or uncharacteristic persistence of a particular behavior may also herald the presence of catatonia with ASD.⁸

Catatonia caused by a neurologic or metabolic factor or a substance can be difficult to distinguish from delirium complicated by catatonia. Delirium may be identified in patients with catatonia by the presence of a waxing and waning level of consciousness (vs fluctuating behavior in catatonia) and slowing of the EEG.^12,15 Antipsychotic medications can improve delirium but worsen catatonia, while benzodiazepines can improve catatonia but worsen delirium.

Continue to: Among other neurologic syndromes...

Benzodiazepines, ECT are the usual treatments

Experience dictates that the general principles of treatment noted in Table 7^12,15,23,31 apply to all patients with catatonia. Since the first reported improvement of catatonia with amobarbital in 1930,⁶ there have been no controlled studies of specific treatments of catatonia.¹³ Meaningful treatment trials are either naturalistic, or have been performed only for NMS and malignant catatonia.⁵ However, multiple case reports and case series suggest that treatments with agents that have anticonvulsant properties (benzodiazepines, barbiturates) and ECT are effective.⁵

Benzodiazepines and related compounds. Case series have suggested a 60% to 80% remission rate of catatonia with benzodiazepines, the most commonly utilized of which has been lorazepam.^7,13,32 Treatment begins with a lorazepam challenge test of 1 to 2 mg in adults and 0.5 to 1 mg in children and geriatric patients,^9,15 administered orally (including via nasogastric tube), IM, or IV. Following a response (≥50% improvement), the dose is increased to 2 mg 3 times per day. The dose is further increased to 6 to 16 mg/d, and sometimes up to 30 mg/d.^9,11 Oral is less effective than sublingual or IM administration.¹¹ Diazepam can be helpful at doses 5 times the lorazepam dose.^9,17 A zolpidem challenge test of 10 mg orally or via nasogastric tube has also been utilized.¹⁵ Response is brief and is usually followed by lorazepam, although zolpidem up to 40 mg/d has been used for ongoing treatment.⁹

One alternative benzodiazepine protocol utilizes an initial IV dose of 2 mg lorazepam, repeated 3 to 5 times per day; the dose is increased to 10 to 12 mg/d if the first doses are partially effective.¹⁶ A lorazepam/diazepam approach involves a combination of IM lorazepam and IV diazepam.¹¹ The protocol begins with 2 mg of IM lorazepam. If there is no effect within 2 hours, a second 2 mg dose is administered, followed by an IV infusion of 10 mg diazepam in 500 ml of normal saline at 1.25 mg/hour until catatonia remits.

An Indian study of 107 patients (mean age 26) receiving relatively low doses of lorazepam (3 to 6 mg/d for at least 3 days) found that factors suggesting a robust response include a shorter duration of catatonia and waxy flexibility, while passivity, mutism, and auditory hallucinations describing the patient in the third person were associated with a poorer acute response.³¹ Catatonia with marked retardation and mutism complicating schizophrenia, especially with chronic negative symptoms, may be associated with a lower response rate to benzodiazepines.^20,33 Maintenance lorazepam has been effective in reducing relapse and recurrence.¹¹ There are no controlled studies of maintenance treatment with benzodiazepines, but clinical reports suggest that doses in the range of 4 to 10 mg/d are effective.³²

Continue to: ECT was used for catatonia in 1934...

ECT was first used for catatonia in 1934, when Laszlo Meduna used chemically induced seizures in catatonic patients who had been on tube feeding for months and no longer needed it after treatment.^6,7 As was true for other disorders, this approach was replaced by ECT.⁷ In various case series, the effectiveness of ECT in catatonia has been 53% to 100%.^7,13,15 Right unilateral ECT has been reported to be effective with 1 treatment.²¹ However, the best-established approach is with bitemporal ECT with a suprathreshold stimulus,⁹ usually with an acute course of 6 to 20 treatments.²⁰ ECT has been reported to be equally safe and effective in adolescents and adults.³⁴ Continued ECT is usually necessary until the patient has returned to baseline.⁹

ECT usually is recommended within 24 hours for treatment-resistant malignant catatonia or refusal to eat or drink, and within 2 to 3 days if medications are not sufficiently effective in other forms of catatonia.^12,15,20 If ECT is initiated after a benzodiazepine trial, the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil is administered first to reverse the anticonvulsant effect.⁹ Some experts recommend using a muscle relaxant other than succinylcholine in the presence of evidence of muscle damage.⁷

Alternatives to benzodiazepines and ECT. Based on case reports, the treatments described in Table 8^{13,15,17,20,25} have been used for patients with catatonia who do not tolerate or respond to standard treatments. The largest number of case reports have been with NMDA antagonists, while the presumed involvement of reduced dopamine signaling suggests that dopaminergic medications should be helpful. Dantrolene, which blocks release of calcium from intracellular stores and has been used to treat malignant hyperthermia, is sometimes used for NMS, often with disappointing results.

Whereas first-generation antipsychotics definitely increase the risk of catatonia and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) probably do so, SGAs are sometimes necessary to treat persistent psychosis in patients with schizophrenia who develop catatonia. Of these medications, clozapine may be most desirable because of low potency for dopamine receptor blockade and modulation of glutamatergic signaling. Partial dopamine agonism by aripiprazole, and the potential for increased subcortical prefrontal dopamine release resulting from serotonin 5HT2A antagonism and 5HT1A agonism by other SGAs, could also be helpful or at least not harmful in catatonia. Lorazepam is usually administered along with these medications to ameliorate treatment-emergent exacerbation of catatonia.

There are no controlled studies of any of these treatments. Based on case reports, most experts would recommend initiating treatment of catatonia with lorazepam, followed by ECT if necessary or in the presence of life-threatening catatonia. If ECT is not available, ineffective, or not tolerated, the first alternatives to be considered would be an NMDA antagonist or an anticonvulsant.²⁰

Continue to: Course varies by patient, underlying cause

Course varies by patient, underlying cause

The response to benzodiazepines or ECT can vary from episode to episode¹¹ and is similar in adults and younger patients.²² Many patients recover completely after a single episode, while relapse after remission occurs repeatedly in periodic catatonia, which involves chronic alternating stupor and excitement waxing and waning over years.¹¹ Relapses may occur frequently, or every few years.¹¹ Some cases of catatonia initially have an episodic course and become chronic and deteriorating, possibly paralleling the original descriptions of the natural history of untreated catatonia, while malignant catatonia can be complicated by medical morbidity or death.⁴ The long-term prognosis generally depends on the underlying cause of catatonia.⁵

Bottom Line

Much more common than many clinicians realize, catatonia can be overlooked because symptoms can mimic or overlap with features of an underlying medical or neurologic disorder. Suspect catatonia when one of these illnesses has an unexpected course or an inadequate treatment response. Be alert to characteristic changes in behavior and speech. A benzodiazepine challenge can be used to diagnose and begin treatment of catatonia. Consider electroconvulsive therapy sooner rather than later, especially for severely ill patients.

Related Resources

• Gibson RC, Walcott G. Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006570. 
• Newcastle University. Catatonia. https://youtu.be/_s1lzxHRO4U.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Amobarbital • Amytal
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Azithromycin • Zithromax
Baclofen • Lioresal
Benztropine • Cogentin
Carbamazepine • Carbatrol, Tegretol
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet
Ciprofloxacin • Cipro
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Dexamethasone • Decadron
Dextromethorphan/quinidine • Neudexta
Diazepam • Valium
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Flumazenil • Romazicon
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Ritalin
Minocycline • Minocin
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal
Succinylcholine • Anectine
Topiramate • Topamax
Trihexyphenidyl • Artane
Valproate • Depakote
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Is catatonia a rare condition that belongs in the history books, or is it more prevalent than we think? If we think we don’t see it often, how will we recognize it? And how do we treat it? This article reviews the evolution of our understanding of the phenomenology and therapy of this interesting and complex condition.

History of the concept

In 1874, Kahlbaum^1,2 was the first to propose a syndrome of motor dysfunction characterized by mutism, immobility, staring gaze, negativism, stereotyped behavior, waxy flexibility, and verbal stereotypies that he called catatonia. Kahlbaum conceptualized catatonia as a distinct disorder,³ but Kraepelin reformulated it as a feature of dementia praecox.⁴ Although Bleuler felt that catatonia could occur in other psychiatric disorders and in normal people,⁴ he also included catatonia as a marker of schizophrenia, where it remained from DSM-I through DSM-IV.³ As was believed to be true of schizophrenia, Kraepelin considered catatonia to be characterized by poor prognosis, whereas Bleuler eliminated poor prognosis as a criterion for catatonia.³

In DSM-IV, catatonia was still a subtype of schizophrenia, but for the first time it was expanded diagnostically to become both a specifier in mood disorders, and a syndrome resulting from a general medical condition.^5,6 In DSM-5, catatonic schizophrenia was deleted, and catatonia became a specifier for 10 disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders, and general medical conditions.^3,5-9 In ICD-10, however, catatonia is still associated primarily with schizophrenia.¹⁰

A wide range of presentations

Catatonia is a cyclical syndrome characterized by alterations in motor, behavioral, and vocal signs occurring in the context of medical, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders.⁸ The most common features are immobility, waxy flexibility, stupor, mutism, negativism, echolalia, echopraxia, peculiarities of voluntary movement, and rigidity.^7,11 Features of catatonia that have been repeatedly described through the years are summarized in Table 1.^8,12,13 In general, presentations of catatonia are not specific to any psychiatric or medical etiology.^13,14

Catatonia often is described along a continuum from retarded/stuporous to excited,^14,15 and from benign to malignant.¹³ Examples of these ranges of presentation include^{5,12,13,15-19}:

Stuporous/retarded catatonia (Kahlbaum syndrome) is a primarily negative syndrome in which stupor, mutism, negativism, obsessional slowness, and posturing predominate. Akinetic mutism and coma vigil are sometimes considered to be types of stuporous catatonia, as occasionally are locked-in syndrome and abulia caused by anterior cingulate lesions.

Excited catatonia (hyperkinetic variant, Bell’s mania, oneirophrenia, oneroid state/syndrome, catatonia raptus) is characterized by agitation, combativeness, verbigeration, stereotypies, grimacing, and echo phenomena (echopraxia and echolalia).

Continue to: Malignant (lethal) catatonia

Several specific subtypes of catatonia that may exist anywhere along dimensions of activity and severity also have been described:

Periodic catatonia. In 1908, Kraepelin described a form of periodic catatonia, with rapid shifts from excitement to stupor.⁴ Later, Gjessing described periodic catatonia in schizophrenia and reported success treating it with high doses of thyroid hormone.⁴ Today, periodic catatonia refers to the rapid onset of recurrent, brief hypokinetic or hyperkinetic episodes lasting 4 to 10 days and recurring during the course of weeks to years. Patients often are asymptomatic between episodes except for grimacing, stereotypies, and negativism later in the course.^13,15 At least some forms of periodic catatonia are familial,⁴ with autosomal dominant transmission possibly linked to chromosome 15q15.¹³

A familial form of catatonia has been described that has a poor response to standard therapies (benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy [ECT]), but in view of the high comorbidity of catatonia and bipolar disorder, it is difficult to determine whether this is a separate condition, or a group of patients with bipolar disorder.⁵

Late (ie, late-onset) catatonia is well described in the Japanese literature.¹⁰ Reported primarily in women without a known medical illness or brain disorder, late catatonia begins with prodromal hypochondriacal or depressive symptoms during a stressful situation, followed by unprovoked anxiety and agitation. Some patients develop hallucinations, delusions, and recurrent excitement, along with anxiety and agitation. The next stage involves typical catatonic features (mainly excitement, retardation, negativism, and autonomic disturbance), progressing to stupor, mutism, verbal stereotypies, and negativism, including refusal of food. Most patients have residual symptoms following improvement. A few cases have been noted to remit with ECT, with relapse when treatment was discontinued. Late catatonia has been thought to be associated with late-onset schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or to be an independent entity.

Continue to: Untreated catatonia can have...

Not as rare as you might think

With the shift from inpatient to outpatient care driven by deinstitutionalization, longitudinal close observation became less common, and clinicians got the impression that the dramatic catatonia that was common in the hospital had become rare.³ The impression that catatonia was unimportant was strengthened by expanding industry promotion of antipsychotic medications while ignoring catatonia, for which the industry had no specific treatment.³ With recent research, however, catatonia has been reported in 7% to 38% of adult psychiatric patients, including 9% to 25% of inpatients, 20% to 25% of patients with mania,^3,5 and 20% of patients with major depressive episodes.⁷ Catatonia has been noted in .6% to 18% of adolescent psychiatric inpatients (especially in communication and social disorders programs),^5,8,22 some children,⁵ and 6% to 18% of adult and juvenile patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).²³ In the medical setting, catatonia occurs in 12% to 37% of patients with delirium,^{8,14,17,18,20,24} 7% to 45% of medically ill patients, including those with no psychiatric history,^12,13 and 4% of ICU patients.¹² Several substances have been linked to catatonia; these are discussed later.¹¹ Contrary to earlier impressions, catatonia is more common in mood disorders, particularly mixed bipolar disorder, especially mania,⁵ than in schizophrenia.^7,8,17,25

Pathophysiology/etiology

Conditions associated with catatonia have different features that act through a final common pathway,⁷ possibly related to the neurobiology of an extreme fear response called tonic immobility that has been conserved through evolution.⁸ This mechanism may be mediated by decreased dopamine signaling in basal ganglia, orbitofrontal, and limbic systems, including the hypothalamus and basal forebrain.^3,17,20 Subcortical reduction of dopaminergic neurotransmission appears to be related to reduced GABA_A receptor signaling and dysfunction of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors with glutaminergic excess in striato-cortical or frontal cortico-cortical systems.^13,20,26,27

Up to one-quarter of cases of catatonia are secondary to medical (mostly neurologic) factors or substances.¹⁵Table 2^5,13,15 lists common medical and neurological causes. Medications and substances known to cause catatonia are noted in Table 3.^5,8,13,16,26

Catatonia can be a specifier, or a separate condition

DSM-5 criteria for catatonia are summarized in Table 4.²⁸ With these features, catatonia can be a specifier for depressive, bipolar, or psychotic disorders; a complication of a medical disorder; or another separate diagnosis.⁸ The diagnosis of catatonia in DSM-5 is made when the clinical picture is dominated by ≥3 of the following core features^8,15:

• motoric immobility as evidenced by catalepsy (including waxy flexibility) or stupor
• excessive purposeless motor activity that is not influenced by external stimuli
• extreme negativism or mutism
• peculiarities of voluntary movement such as posturing, stereotyped movements, prominent mannerisms, or prominent grimacing
• echolalia or echopraxia.

Continue to: DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more...

DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more restrictive than DSM-IV criteria. As a result, they exclude a significant number of patients who would be considered catatonic in other systems.²⁹ For example, DSM-5 criteria do not include common features noted in Table 1,^8,12,13 such as rigidity and staring.^14,29 If the diagnosis is not obvious, it might be suspected in the presence of >1 of posturing, automatic obedience, or waxy flexibility, or >2 of echopraxia/echolalia, gegenhalten, negativism, mitgehen, or stereotypy/vergiberation.¹² Clues to catatonia that are not included in formal diagnostic systems and are easily confused with features of psychosis include whispered or robotic speech, uncharacteristic foreign accent, tiptoe walking, hopping, rituals, and odd mannerisms.⁵

There are several catatonia rating scales containing between 14 and 40 items that are useful in diagnosing and following treatment response in catatonia (Table 5^8,13,15,29). Of these, the Kanner Scale is primarily applied in neuropsychiatric settings, while the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) has had the most widespread use. The BFCRS consists of 23 items, the first 14 of which are used as a screening instrument. It requires 2 of its first 14 items to diagnose catatonia, while DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 signs.²⁹ If the diagnosis remains in doubt, a benzodiazepine agonist test can be instructive.^9,12 The presence of catatonia is suggested by significant improvement, ideally assessed prospectively by improvement of BFCRS scores, shortly after administration of a single dose of 1 to 2 mg lorazepam or 5 mg diazepam IV, or 10 mg zolpidem orally. Further evaluation generally consists of a careful medical and psychiatric histories of patient and family, review of all medications, history of substance use with toxicology as indicated, physical examination focusing on autonomic dysregulation, examination for delirium, and laboratory tests as suggested by the history and examination that may include complete blood count, creatine kinase, serum iron, blood urea nitrogen, electrolytes, creatinine, prolactin, anti-NMDA antibodies, thyroid function tests, serology, metabolic panel, human immunodeficiency virus testing, EEG, and neuroimaging.^8,15,16

A complex differential diagnosis

Manifestations of numerous psychiatric and neurologic disorders can mimic or be identical to those of catatonia. The differential diagnosis is complicated by the fact that some of these disorders can cause catatonia, which is then masked by the primary disorder; some disorders (eg, NMS) are forms of catatonia. Table 6^{5,8,12,19,26,30} lists conditions to consider.

Some of these conditions warrant discussion. ASD may have catatonia-like features such as echolalia, echopraxia, excitement, combativeness, grimacing, mutism, logorrhea, verbigeration, catalepsy, mannerisms, rigidity, staring and withdrawal.⁸ Catatonia may also be a stage of deterioration of autism, in which case it is characterized by increases in slowness of movement and speech, reliance on physical or verbal prompting from others, passivity, and lack of motivation.²³ At the same time, catatonic features such as mutism, stereotypic speech, repetitive behavior, echolalia, posturing, mannerisms, purposeless agitation, and rigidity in catatonia can be misinterpreted as signs of ASD.⁸ Catatonia should be suspected as a complication of longstanding ASD in the presence of a consistent, marked change in motor behavior, such as immobility, decreased speech, stupor, excitement, or mixtures or alternations of stupor and excitement.⁸ Freezing while doing something, difficulty crossing lines, or uncharacteristic persistence of a particular behavior may also herald the presence of catatonia with ASD.⁸

Catatonia caused by a neurologic or metabolic factor or a substance can be difficult to distinguish from delirium complicated by catatonia. Delirium may be identified in patients with catatonia by the presence of a waxing and waning level of consciousness (vs fluctuating behavior in catatonia) and slowing of the EEG.^12,15 Antipsychotic medications can improve delirium but worsen catatonia, while benzodiazepines can improve catatonia but worsen delirium.

Continue to: Among other neurologic syndromes...

Benzodiazepines, ECT are the usual treatments

Experience dictates that the general principles of treatment noted in Table 7^12,15,23,31 apply to all patients with catatonia. Since the first reported improvement of catatonia with amobarbital in 1930,⁶ there have been no controlled studies of specific treatments of catatonia.¹³ Meaningful treatment trials are either naturalistic, or have been performed only for NMS and malignant catatonia.⁵ However, multiple case reports and case series suggest that treatments with agents that have anticonvulsant properties (benzodiazepines, barbiturates) and ECT are effective.⁵

Benzodiazepines and related compounds. Case series have suggested a 60% to 80% remission rate of catatonia with benzodiazepines, the most commonly utilized of which has been lorazepam.^7,13,32 Treatment begins with a lorazepam challenge test of 1 to 2 mg in adults and 0.5 to 1 mg in children and geriatric patients,^9,15 administered orally (including via nasogastric tube), IM, or IV. Following a response (≥50% improvement), the dose is increased to 2 mg 3 times per day. The dose is further increased to 6 to 16 mg/d, and sometimes up to 30 mg/d.^9,11 Oral is less effective than sublingual or IM administration.¹¹ Diazepam can be helpful at doses 5 times the lorazepam dose.^9,17 A zolpidem challenge test of 10 mg orally or via nasogastric tube has also been utilized.¹⁵ Response is brief and is usually followed by lorazepam, although zolpidem up to 40 mg/d has been used for ongoing treatment.⁹

One alternative benzodiazepine protocol utilizes an initial IV dose of 2 mg lorazepam, repeated 3 to 5 times per day; the dose is increased to 10 to 12 mg/d if the first doses are partially effective.¹⁶ A lorazepam/diazepam approach involves a combination of IM lorazepam and IV diazepam.¹¹ The protocol begins with 2 mg of IM lorazepam. If there is no effect within 2 hours, a second 2 mg dose is administered, followed by an IV infusion of 10 mg diazepam in 500 ml of normal saline at 1.25 mg/hour until catatonia remits.

An Indian study of 107 patients (mean age 26) receiving relatively low doses of lorazepam (3 to 6 mg/d for at least 3 days) found that factors suggesting a robust response include a shorter duration of catatonia and waxy flexibility, while passivity, mutism, and auditory hallucinations describing the patient in the third person were associated with a poorer acute response.³¹ Catatonia with marked retardation and mutism complicating schizophrenia, especially with chronic negative symptoms, may be associated with a lower response rate to benzodiazepines.^20,33 Maintenance lorazepam has been effective in reducing relapse and recurrence.¹¹ There are no controlled studies of maintenance treatment with benzodiazepines, but clinical reports suggest that doses in the range of 4 to 10 mg/d are effective.³²

Continue to: ECT was used for catatonia in 1934...

ECT was first used for catatonia in 1934, when Laszlo Meduna used chemically induced seizures in catatonic patients who had been on tube feeding for months and no longer needed it after treatment.^6,7 As was true for other disorders, this approach was replaced by ECT.⁷ In various case series, the effectiveness of ECT in catatonia has been 53% to 100%.^7,13,15 Right unilateral ECT has been reported to be effective with 1 treatment.²¹ However, the best-established approach is with bitemporal ECT with a suprathreshold stimulus,⁹ usually with an acute course of 6 to 20 treatments.²⁰ ECT has been reported to be equally safe and effective in adolescents and adults.³⁴ Continued ECT is usually necessary until the patient has returned to baseline.⁹

ECT usually is recommended within 24 hours for treatment-resistant malignant catatonia or refusal to eat or drink, and within 2 to 3 days if medications are not sufficiently effective in other forms of catatonia.^12,15,20 If ECT is initiated after a benzodiazepine trial, the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil is administered first to reverse the anticonvulsant effect.⁹ Some experts recommend using a muscle relaxant other than succinylcholine in the presence of evidence of muscle damage.⁷

Alternatives to benzodiazepines and ECT. Based on case reports, the treatments described in Table 8^{13,15,17,20,25} have been used for patients with catatonia who do not tolerate or respond to standard treatments. The largest number of case reports have been with NMDA antagonists, while the presumed involvement of reduced dopamine signaling suggests that dopaminergic medications should be helpful. Dantrolene, which blocks release of calcium from intracellular stores and has been used to treat malignant hyperthermia, is sometimes used for NMS, often with disappointing results.

Whereas first-generation antipsychotics definitely increase the risk of catatonia and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) probably do so, SGAs are sometimes necessary to treat persistent psychosis in patients with schizophrenia who develop catatonia. Of these medications, clozapine may be most desirable because of low potency for dopamine receptor blockade and modulation of glutamatergic signaling. Partial dopamine agonism by aripiprazole, and the potential for increased subcortical prefrontal dopamine release resulting from serotonin 5HT2A antagonism and 5HT1A agonism by other SGAs, could also be helpful or at least not harmful in catatonia. Lorazepam is usually administered along with these medications to ameliorate treatment-emergent exacerbation of catatonia.

There are no controlled studies of any of these treatments. Based on case reports, most experts would recommend initiating treatment of catatonia with lorazepam, followed by ECT if necessary or in the presence of life-threatening catatonia. If ECT is not available, ineffective, or not tolerated, the first alternatives to be considered would be an NMDA antagonist or an anticonvulsant.²⁰

Continue to: Course varies by patient, underlying cause

Course varies by patient, underlying cause

The response to benzodiazepines or ECT can vary from episode to episode¹¹ and is similar in adults and younger patients.²² Many patients recover completely after a single episode, while relapse after remission occurs repeatedly in periodic catatonia, which involves chronic alternating stupor and excitement waxing and waning over years.¹¹ Relapses may occur frequently, or every few years.¹¹ Some cases of catatonia initially have an episodic course and become chronic and deteriorating, possibly paralleling the original descriptions of the natural history of untreated catatonia, while malignant catatonia can be complicated by medical morbidity or death.⁴ The long-term prognosis generally depends on the underlying cause of catatonia.⁵

Bottom Line

Much more common than many clinicians realize, catatonia can be overlooked because symptoms can mimic or overlap with features of an underlying medical or neurologic disorder. Suspect catatonia when one of these illnesses has an unexpected course or an inadequate treatment response. Be alert to characteristic changes in behavior and speech. A benzodiazepine challenge can be used to diagnose and begin treatment of catatonia. Consider electroconvulsive therapy sooner rather than later, especially for severely ill patients.

Related Resources

• Gibson RC, Walcott G. Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006570. 
• Newcastle University. Catatonia. https://youtu.be/_s1lzxHRO4U.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Amobarbital • Amytal
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Azithromycin • Zithromax
Baclofen • Lioresal
Benztropine • Cogentin
Carbamazepine • Carbatrol, Tegretol
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet
Ciprofloxacin • Cipro
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Dexamethasone • Decadron
Dextromethorphan/quinidine • Neudexta
Diazepam • Valium
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Flumazenil • Romazicon
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Ritalin
Minocycline • Minocin
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal
Succinylcholine • Anectine
Topiramate • Topamax
Trihexyphenidyl • Artane
Valproate • Depakote
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Is catatonia a rare condition that belongs in the history books, or is it more prevalent than we think? If we think we don’t see it often, how will we recognize it? And how do we treat it? This article reviews the evolution of our understanding of the phenomenology and therapy of this interesting and complex condition.

History of the concept

In 1874, Kahlbaum^1,2 was the first to propose a syndrome of motor dysfunction characterized by mutism, immobility, staring gaze, negativism, stereotyped behavior, waxy flexibility, and verbal stereotypies that he called catatonia. Kahlbaum conceptualized catatonia as a distinct disorder,³ but Kraepelin reformulated it as a feature of dementia praecox.⁴ Although Bleuler felt that catatonia could occur in other psychiatric disorders and in normal people,⁴ he also included catatonia as a marker of schizophrenia, where it remained from DSM-I through DSM-IV.³ As was believed to be true of schizophrenia, Kraepelin considered catatonia to be characterized by poor prognosis, whereas Bleuler eliminated poor prognosis as a criterion for catatonia.³

In DSM-IV, catatonia was still a subtype of schizophrenia, but for the first time it was expanded diagnostically to become both a specifier in mood disorders, and a syndrome resulting from a general medical condition.^5,6 In DSM-5, catatonic schizophrenia was deleted, and catatonia became a specifier for 10 disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders, and general medical conditions.^3,5-9 In ICD-10, however, catatonia is still associated primarily with schizophrenia.¹⁰

A wide range of presentations

Catatonia is a cyclical syndrome characterized by alterations in motor, behavioral, and vocal signs occurring in the context of medical, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders.⁸ The most common features are immobility, waxy flexibility, stupor, mutism, negativism, echolalia, echopraxia, peculiarities of voluntary movement, and rigidity.^7,11 Features of catatonia that have been repeatedly described through the years are summarized in Table 1.^8,12,13 In general, presentations of catatonia are not specific to any psychiatric or medical etiology.^13,14

Catatonia often is described along a continuum from retarded/stuporous to excited,^14,15 and from benign to malignant.¹³ Examples of these ranges of presentation include^{5,12,13,15-19}:

Stuporous/retarded catatonia (Kahlbaum syndrome) is a primarily negative syndrome in which stupor, mutism, negativism, obsessional slowness, and posturing predominate. Akinetic mutism and coma vigil are sometimes considered to be types of stuporous catatonia, as occasionally are locked-in syndrome and abulia caused by anterior cingulate lesions.

Excited catatonia (hyperkinetic variant, Bell’s mania, oneirophrenia, oneroid state/syndrome, catatonia raptus) is characterized by agitation, combativeness, verbigeration, stereotypies, grimacing, and echo phenomena (echopraxia and echolalia).

Continue to: Malignant (lethal) catatonia

Several specific subtypes of catatonia that may exist anywhere along dimensions of activity and severity also have been described:

Periodic catatonia. In 1908, Kraepelin described a form of periodic catatonia, with rapid shifts from excitement to stupor.⁴ Later, Gjessing described periodic catatonia in schizophrenia and reported success treating it with high doses of thyroid hormone.⁴ Today, periodic catatonia refers to the rapid onset of recurrent, brief hypokinetic or hyperkinetic episodes lasting 4 to 10 days and recurring during the course of weeks to years. Patients often are asymptomatic between episodes except for grimacing, stereotypies, and negativism later in the course.^13,15 At least some forms of periodic catatonia are familial,⁴ with autosomal dominant transmission possibly linked to chromosome 15q15.¹³

A familial form of catatonia has been described that has a poor response to standard therapies (benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy [ECT]), but in view of the high comorbidity of catatonia and bipolar disorder, it is difficult to determine whether this is a separate condition, or a group of patients with bipolar disorder.⁵

Late (ie, late-onset) catatonia is well described in the Japanese literature.¹⁰ Reported primarily in women without a known medical illness or brain disorder, late catatonia begins with prodromal hypochondriacal or depressive symptoms during a stressful situation, followed by unprovoked anxiety and agitation. Some patients develop hallucinations, delusions, and recurrent excitement, along with anxiety and agitation. The next stage involves typical catatonic features (mainly excitement, retardation, negativism, and autonomic disturbance), progressing to stupor, mutism, verbal stereotypies, and negativism, including refusal of food. Most patients have residual symptoms following improvement. A few cases have been noted to remit with ECT, with relapse when treatment was discontinued. Late catatonia has been thought to be associated with late-onset schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or to be an independent entity.

Continue to: Untreated catatonia can have...

Not as rare as you might think

With the shift from inpatient to outpatient care driven by deinstitutionalization, longitudinal close observation became less common, and clinicians got the impression that the dramatic catatonia that was common in the hospital had become rare.³ The impression that catatonia was unimportant was strengthened by expanding industry promotion of antipsychotic medications while ignoring catatonia, for which the industry had no specific treatment.³ With recent research, however, catatonia has been reported in 7% to 38% of adult psychiatric patients, including 9% to 25% of inpatients, 20% to 25% of patients with mania,^3,5 and 20% of patients with major depressive episodes.⁷ Catatonia has been noted in .6% to 18% of adolescent psychiatric inpatients (especially in communication and social disorders programs),^5,8,22 some children,⁵ and 6% to 18% of adult and juvenile patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).²³ In the medical setting, catatonia occurs in 12% to 37% of patients with delirium,^{8,14,17,18,20,24} 7% to 45% of medically ill patients, including those with no psychiatric history,^12,13 and 4% of ICU patients.¹² Several substances have been linked to catatonia; these are discussed later.¹¹ Contrary to earlier impressions, catatonia is more common in mood disorders, particularly mixed bipolar disorder, especially mania,⁵ than in schizophrenia.^7,8,17,25

Pathophysiology/etiology

Conditions associated with catatonia have different features that act through a final common pathway,⁷ possibly related to the neurobiology of an extreme fear response called tonic immobility that has been conserved through evolution.⁸ This mechanism may be mediated by decreased dopamine signaling in basal ganglia, orbitofrontal, and limbic systems, including the hypothalamus and basal forebrain.^3,17,20 Subcortical reduction of dopaminergic neurotransmission appears to be related to reduced GABA_A receptor signaling and dysfunction of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors with glutaminergic excess in striato-cortical or frontal cortico-cortical systems.^13,20,26,27

Up to one-quarter of cases of catatonia are secondary to medical (mostly neurologic) factors or substances.¹⁵Table 2^5,13,15 lists common medical and neurological causes. Medications and substances known to cause catatonia are noted in Table 3.^5,8,13,16,26

Catatonia can be a specifier, or a separate condition

DSM-5 criteria for catatonia are summarized in Table 4.²⁸ With these features, catatonia can be a specifier for depressive, bipolar, or psychotic disorders; a complication of a medical disorder; or another separate diagnosis.⁸ The diagnosis of catatonia in DSM-5 is made when the clinical picture is dominated by ≥3 of the following core features^8,15:

• motoric immobility as evidenced by catalepsy (including waxy flexibility) or stupor
• excessive purposeless motor activity that is not influenced by external stimuli
• extreme negativism or mutism
• peculiarities of voluntary movement such as posturing, stereotyped movements, prominent mannerisms, or prominent grimacing
• echolalia or echopraxia.

Continue to: DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more...

DSM-5 criteria for the diagnosis of catatonia are more restrictive than DSM-IV criteria. As a result, they exclude a significant number of patients who would be considered catatonic in other systems.²⁹ For example, DSM-5 criteria do not include common features noted in Table 1,^8,12,13 such as rigidity and staring.^14,29 If the diagnosis is not obvious, it might be suspected in the presence of >1 of posturing, automatic obedience, or waxy flexibility, or >2 of echopraxia/echolalia, gegenhalten, negativism, mitgehen, or stereotypy/vergiberation.¹² Clues to catatonia that are not included in formal diagnostic systems and are easily confused with features of psychosis include whispered or robotic speech, uncharacteristic foreign accent, tiptoe walking, hopping, rituals, and odd mannerisms.⁵

There are several catatonia rating scales containing between 14 and 40 items that are useful in diagnosing and following treatment response in catatonia (Table 5^8,13,15,29). Of these, the Kanner Scale is primarily applied in neuropsychiatric settings, while the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) has had the most widespread use. The BFCRS consists of 23 items, the first 14 of which are used as a screening instrument. It requires 2 of its first 14 items to diagnose catatonia, while DSM-5 requires 3 of 12 signs.²⁹ If the diagnosis remains in doubt, a benzodiazepine agonist test can be instructive.^9,12 The presence of catatonia is suggested by significant improvement, ideally assessed prospectively by improvement of BFCRS scores, shortly after administration of a single dose of 1 to 2 mg lorazepam or 5 mg diazepam IV, or 10 mg zolpidem orally. Further evaluation generally consists of a careful medical and psychiatric histories of patient and family, review of all medications, history of substance use with toxicology as indicated, physical examination focusing on autonomic dysregulation, examination for delirium, and laboratory tests as suggested by the history and examination that may include complete blood count, creatine kinase, serum iron, blood urea nitrogen, electrolytes, creatinine, prolactin, anti-NMDA antibodies, thyroid function tests, serology, metabolic panel, human immunodeficiency virus testing, EEG, and neuroimaging.^8,15,16

A complex differential diagnosis

Manifestations of numerous psychiatric and neurologic disorders can mimic or be identical to those of catatonia. The differential diagnosis is complicated by the fact that some of these disorders can cause catatonia, which is then masked by the primary disorder; some disorders (eg, NMS) are forms of catatonia. Table 6^{5,8,12,19,26,30} lists conditions to consider.

Some of these conditions warrant discussion. ASD may have catatonia-like features such as echolalia, echopraxia, excitement, combativeness, grimacing, mutism, logorrhea, verbigeration, catalepsy, mannerisms, rigidity, staring and withdrawal.⁸ Catatonia may also be a stage of deterioration of autism, in which case it is characterized by increases in slowness of movement and speech, reliance on physical or verbal prompting from others, passivity, and lack of motivation.²³ At the same time, catatonic features such as mutism, stereotypic speech, repetitive behavior, echolalia, posturing, mannerisms, purposeless agitation, and rigidity in catatonia can be misinterpreted as signs of ASD.⁸ Catatonia should be suspected as a complication of longstanding ASD in the presence of a consistent, marked change in motor behavior, such as immobility, decreased speech, stupor, excitement, or mixtures or alternations of stupor and excitement.⁸ Freezing while doing something, difficulty crossing lines, or uncharacteristic persistence of a particular behavior may also herald the presence of catatonia with ASD.⁸

Catatonia caused by a neurologic or metabolic factor or a substance can be difficult to distinguish from delirium complicated by catatonia. Delirium may be identified in patients with catatonia by the presence of a waxing and waning level of consciousness (vs fluctuating behavior in catatonia) and slowing of the EEG.^12,15 Antipsychotic medications can improve delirium but worsen catatonia, while benzodiazepines can improve catatonia but worsen delirium.

Continue to: Among other neurologic syndromes...

Benzodiazepines, ECT are the usual treatments

Experience dictates that the general principles of treatment noted in Table 7^12,15,23,31 apply to all patients with catatonia. Since the first reported improvement of catatonia with amobarbital in 1930,⁶ there have been no controlled studies of specific treatments of catatonia.¹³ Meaningful treatment trials are either naturalistic, or have been performed only for NMS and malignant catatonia.⁵ However, multiple case reports and case series suggest that treatments with agents that have anticonvulsant properties (benzodiazepines, barbiturates) and ECT are effective.⁵

Benzodiazepines and related compounds. Case series have suggested a 60% to 80% remission rate of catatonia with benzodiazepines, the most commonly utilized of which has been lorazepam.^7,13,32 Treatment begins with a lorazepam challenge test of 1 to 2 mg in adults and 0.5 to 1 mg in children and geriatric patients,^9,15 administered orally (including via nasogastric tube), IM, or IV. Following a response (≥50% improvement), the dose is increased to 2 mg 3 times per day. The dose is further increased to 6 to 16 mg/d, and sometimes up to 30 mg/d.^9,11 Oral is less effective than sublingual or IM administration.¹¹ Diazepam can be helpful at doses 5 times the lorazepam dose.^9,17 A zolpidem challenge test of 10 mg orally or via nasogastric tube has also been utilized.¹⁵ Response is brief and is usually followed by lorazepam, although zolpidem up to 40 mg/d has been used for ongoing treatment.⁹

One alternative benzodiazepine protocol utilizes an initial IV dose of 2 mg lorazepam, repeated 3 to 5 times per day; the dose is increased to 10 to 12 mg/d if the first doses are partially effective.¹⁶ A lorazepam/diazepam approach involves a combination of IM lorazepam and IV diazepam.¹¹ The protocol begins with 2 mg of IM lorazepam. If there is no effect within 2 hours, a second 2 mg dose is administered, followed by an IV infusion of 10 mg diazepam in 500 ml of normal saline at 1.25 mg/hour until catatonia remits.

An Indian study of 107 patients (mean age 26) receiving relatively low doses of lorazepam (3 to 6 mg/d for at least 3 days) found that factors suggesting a robust response include a shorter duration of catatonia and waxy flexibility, while passivity, mutism, and auditory hallucinations describing the patient in the third person were associated with a poorer acute response.³¹ Catatonia with marked retardation and mutism complicating schizophrenia, especially with chronic negative symptoms, may be associated with a lower response rate to benzodiazepines.^20,33 Maintenance lorazepam has been effective in reducing relapse and recurrence.¹¹ There are no controlled studies of maintenance treatment with benzodiazepines, but clinical reports suggest that doses in the range of 4 to 10 mg/d are effective.³²

Continue to: ECT was used for catatonia in 1934...

ECT was first used for catatonia in 1934, when Laszlo Meduna used chemically induced seizures in catatonic patients who had been on tube feeding for months and no longer needed it after treatment.^6,7 As was true for other disorders, this approach was replaced by ECT.⁷ In various case series, the effectiveness of ECT in catatonia has been 53% to 100%.^7,13,15 Right unilateral ECT has been reported to be effective with 1 treatment.²¹ However, the best-established approach is with bitemporal ECT with a suprathreshold stimulus,⁹ usually with an acute course of 6 to 20 treatments.²⁰ ECT has been reported to be equally safe and effective in adolescents and adults.³⁴ Continued ECT is usually necessary until the patient has returned to baseline.⁹

ECT usually is recommended within 24 hours for treatment-resistant malignant catatonia or refusal to eat or drink, and within 2 to 3 days if medications are not sufficiently effective in other forms of catatonia.^12,15,20 If ECT is initiated after a benzodiazepine trial, the benzodiazepine antagonist flumazenil is administered first to reverse the anticonvulsant effect.⁹ Some experts recommend using a muscle relaxant other than succinylcholine in the presence of evidence of muscle damage.⁷

Alternatives to benzodiazepines and ECT. Based on case reports, the treatments described in Table 8^{13,15,17,20,25} have been used for patients with catatonia who do not tolerate or respond to standard treatments. The largest number of case reports have been with NMDA antagonists, while the presumed involvement of reduced dopamine signaling suggests that dopaminergic medications should be helpful. Dantrolene, which blocks release of calcium from intracellular stores and has been used to treat malignant hyperthermia, is sometimes used for NMS, often with disappointing results.

Whereas first-generation antipsychotics definitely increase the risk of catatonia and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) probably do so, SGAs are sometimes necessary to treat persistent psychosis in patients with schizophrenia who develop catatonia. Of these medications, clozapine may be most desirable because of low potency for dopamine receptor blockade and modulation of glutamatergic signaling. Partial dopamine agonism by aripiprazole, and the potential for increased subcortical prefrontal dopamine release resulting from serotonin 5HT2A antagonism and 5HT1A agonism by other SGAs, could also be helpful or at least not harmful in catatonia. Lorazepam is usually administered along with these medications to ameliorate treatment-emergent exacerbation of catatonia.

There are no controlled studies of any of these treatments. Based on case reports, most experts would recommend initiating treatment of catatonia with lorazepam, followed by ECT if necessary or in the presence of life-threatening catatonia. If ECT is not available, ineffective, or not tolerated, the first alternatives to be considered would be an NMDA antagonist or an anticonvulsant.²⁰

Continue to: Course varies by patient, underlying cause

Course varies by patient, underlying cause

The response to benzodiazepines or ECT can vary from episode to episode¹¹ and is similar in adults and younger patients.²² Many patients recover completely after a single episode, while relapse after remission occurs repeatedly in periodic catatonia, which involves chronic alternating stupor and excitement waxing and waning over years.¹¹ Relapses may occur frequently, or every few years.¹¹ Some cases of catatonia initially have an episodic course and become chronic and deteriorating, possibly paralleling the original descriptions of the natural history of untreated catatonia, while malignant catatonia can be complicated by medical morbidity or death.⁴ The long-term prognosis generally depends on the underlying cause of catatonia.⁵

Bottom Line

Much more common than many clinicians realize, catatonia can be overlooked because symptoms can mimic or overlap with features of an underlying medical or neurologic disorder. Suspect catatonia when one of these illnesses has an unexpected course or an inadequate treatment response. Be alert to characteristic changes in behavior and speech. A benzodiazepine challenge can be used to diagnose and begin treatment of catatonia. Consider electroconvulsive therapy sooner rather than later, especially for severely ill patients.

Related Resources

• Gibson RC, Walcott G. Benzodiazepines for catatonia in people with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006570. 
• Newcastle University. Catatonia. https://youtu.be/_s1lzxHRO4U.

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Symmetrel
Amobarbital • Amytal
Aripiprazole • Abilify
Azithromycin • Zithromax
Baclofen • Lioresal
Benztropine • Cogentin
Carbamazepine • Carbatrol, Tegretol
Carbidopa/levodopa • Sinemet
Ciprofloxacin • Cipro
Clozapine • Clozaril
Dantrolene • Dantrium
Dexamethasone • Decadron
Dextromethorphan/quinidine • Neudexta
Diazepam • Valium
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Flumazenil • Romazicon
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Fluvoxamine • Luvox
Levetiracetam • Keppra
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Ritalin
Minocycline • Minocin
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal
Succinylcholine • Anectine
Topiramate • Topamax
Trihexyphenidyl • Artane
Valproate • Depakote
Ziprasidone • Geodon
Zolpidem • Ambien

Resources

Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pertussis (whooping cough). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/index.html. Accessed July 6, 2018.

Resources

Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pertussis (whooping cough). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/index.html. Accessed July 6, 2018.

Resources

Liang JL, Tiwari T, Moro P, et al. Prevention of pertussis, tetanus, and diphtheria with vaccines in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2018;67:1-44.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pertussis (whooping cough). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/index.html. Accessed July 6, 2018.

Recently, a medical consulting group published, “The disruption of primary care: How customer-obsessed companies are changing everything.”¹ The essay paints a not-too-rosy picture for the future of traditional family medicine in our Internet-dominated, immediate-gratification-seeking society. They contend:

“The future of primary care extends far beyond the physician’s office to pharmacies, supermarkets and retail clinics including CVS, Walgreens, Target and CityMD, as well as virtual care companies such as MDLive and Amwell. Increasingly, Internet and technology companies like Amazon, Google and Apple are showing signs of getting into the healthcare services and information arena. … These formidable customer-centric companies are primed to become preferred alternative providers of health information and low-acuity services, while lowering the price point of primary care services.”

I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care.

While it is an interesting piece, I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care. Why?

1. Cost efficacy. For common medical conditions, family physicians (FPs) are much more cost-effective than specialty or emergency department care. For example, a young man recently hit his thumb and had a subungual hematoma. He visited an orthopedic physician’s office, where the physician ordered an unnecessary x-ray and sent him home without draining the hematoma. The cost was more than $300. The patient was referred to our office where, later that day, we drained the hematoma with a hypodermic needle at a cost of $90. We all have similar stories of expensive but ineffective care.

2. Immediate care. Many family medicine groups have responded to the demand for immediate care with extended hours, assigning a doctor of the day, and/or having an open-access schedule that allows for a sufficient number of same-day appointments. Many FPs are now available for “virtual visits,” since Web portals for electronic medical records have been become easy to use for secure communication. In addition, many FPs have developed e-consult services to streamline specialist consultations. At the Cleveland Clinic, an FP leads the primary care telemedicine program.

3. A future that is not mutually exclusive. The authors contend that the future will be a matrix of health care services available via the Internet like the Amazon model. I see that model as fully compatible with excellent family medicine. In such a model, a skilled FP and staff provide timely acute care and chronic disease management; they connect patients to other health-related services and high-quality health care information; and they guide patients through our increasingly complex medical system. Isn’t that what we’re already doing?

Recently, a medical consulting group published, “The disruption of primary care: How customer-obsessed companies are changing everything.”¹ The essay paints a not-too-rosy picture for the future of traditional family medicine in our Internet-dominated, immediate-gratification-seeking society. They contend:

“The future of primary care extends far beyond the physician’s office to pharmacies, supermarkets and retail clinics including CVS, Walgreens, Target and CityMD, as well as virtual care companies such as MDLive and Amwell. Increasingly, Internet and technology companies like Amazon, Google and Apple are showing signs of getting into the healthcare services and information arena. … These formidable customer-centric companies are primed to become preferred alternative providers of health information and low-acuity services, while lowering the price point of primary care services.”

I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care.

While it is an interesting piece, I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care. Why?

1. Cost efficacy. For common medical conditions, family physicians (FPs) are much more cost-effective than specialty or emergency department care. For example, a young man recently hit his thumb and had a subungual hematoma. He visited an orthopedic physician’s office, where the physician ordered an unnecessary x-ray and sent him home without draining the hematoma. The cost was more than $300. The patient was referred to our office where, later that day, we drained the hematoma with a hypodermic needle at a cost of $90. We all have similar stories of expensive but ineffective care.

2. Immediate care. Many family medicine groups have responded to the demand for immediate care with extended hours, assigning a doctor of the day, and/or having an open-access schedule that allows for a sufficient number of same-day appointments. Many FPs are now available for “virtual visits,” since Web portals for electronic medical records have been become easy to use for secure communication. In addition, many FPs have developed e-consult services to streamline specialist consultations. At the Cleveland Clinic, an FP leads the primary care telemedicine program.

3. A future that is not mutually exclusive. The authors contend that the future will be a matrix of health care services available via the Internet like the Amazon model. I see that model as fully compatible with excellent family medicine. In such a model, a skilled FP and staff provide timely acute care and chronic disease management; they connect patients to other health-related services and high-quality health care information; and they guide patients through our increasingly complex medical system. Isn’t that what we’re already doing?

Recently, a medical consulting group published, “The disruption of primary care: How customer-obsessed companies are changing everything.”¹ The essay paints a not-too-rosy picture for the future of traditional family medicine in our Internet-dominated, immediate-gratification-seeking society. They contend:

“The future of primary care extends far beyond the physician’s office to pharmacies, supermarkets and retail clinics including CVS, Walgreens, Target and CityMD, as well as virtual care companies such as MDLive and Amwell. Increasingly, Internet and technology companies like Amazon, Google and Apple are showing signs of getting into the healthcare services and information arena. … These formidable customer-centric companies are primed to become preferred alternative providers of health information and low-acuity services, while lowering the price point of primary care services.”

I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care.

While it is an interesting piece, I remain bullish on family medicine and believe the future remains bright for those who practice high-quality primary care. Why?

1. Cost efficacy. For common medical conditions, family physicians (FPs) are much more cost-effective than specialty or emergency department care. For example, a young man recently hit his thumb and had a subungual hematoma. He visited an orthopedic physician’s office, where the physician ordered an unnecessary x-ray and sent him home without draining the hematoma. The cost was more than $300. The patient was referred to our office where, later that day, we drained the hematoma with a hypodermic needle at a cost of $90. We all have similar stories of expensive but ineffective care.

2. Immediate care. Many family medicine groups have responded to the demand for immediate care with extended hours, assigning a doctor of the day, and/or having an open-access schedule that allows for a sufficient number of same-day appointments. Many FPs are now available for “virtual visits,” since Web portals for electronic medical records have been become easy to use for secure communication. In addition, many FPs have developed e-consult services to streamline specialist consultations. At the Cleveland Clinic, an FP leads the primary care telemedicine program.

3. A future that is not mutually exclusive. The authors contend that the future will be a matrix of health care services available via the Internet like the Amazon model. I see that model as fully compatible with excellent family medicine. In such a model, a skilled FP and staff provide timely acute care and chronic disease management; they connect patients to other health-related services and high-quality health care information; and they guide patients through our increasingly complex medical system. Isn’t that what we’re already doing?

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating levofloxacin-based triple therapy as a secondary treatment regimen for patients with H pylori infection who had failed initial clarithromycin-based triple therapy found cure rates averaging 76% (TABLE).¹ Most of the regimens comprised levofloxacin (500 mg), amoxicillin (1 g), and a PPI (40 mg), all twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Ten-day regimens produced better cure rates than 7-day regimens (84% vs 69%; comparison statistic not supplied).

The meta-analysis also included RCTs evaluating bismuth-based quadruple therapy as secondary treatment, which found cure rates averaging 78%.¹ The regimens varied, comprising bismuth salts (120-600 mg, 2-4 times daily), metronidazole (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), tetracycline (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), and a PPI (40 mg twice daily). Longer duration of therapy produced higher cure rates (7 days=76%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.80 in 29 RCTs with 2097 patients; 10 days=77%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93 in 2 RCTs with 142 patients; 14 days=82%; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88 in 12 RCTs with 831 patients).

Repeating the original clarithromycin-based triple therapy (8 RCTs, 265 patients) produced low cure rates (46%).¹

Metronidazole-based therapy has high cure rate in a homogeneous population

A meta-analysis of 24 RCTs (1611 patients) that evaluated metronidazole-based triple therapy (mostly composed of amoxicillin 750 mg, metronidazole 250 mg, and any of a number of PPIs, all dosed at 40 mg) twice daily for 7 days found cure rates averaging 87% in an exclusively Japanese study population.¹

Comparable cure rates for levofloxacin- and bismuth-based therapy

Six RCTs with a total of 1057 patients compared cure rates for levofloxacin-based triple therapy with bismuth-based quadruple therapy and found no difference.¹

Two earlier meta-analyses not included in the previously described study, comprising 8 RCTs with a total of 613 patients, produced conflicting results. The larger study (15 RCTs, 1462 patients) found no difference in cure rates.² The smaller study (7 RCTs, 787 patients) favored quadruple therapy.³

Continue to: Two secondary antibiotic regimens show similar cure rates

A meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (total 460 patients) that compared susceptibility-guided antibiotic secondary treatment (SGT) with empiric antibiotic secondary treatment found no difference in cure rates, although the largest single RCT (172 patients) favored SGT.⁴

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report (a periodically updated European study group evaluating Helicobacter management) includes expert opinion-based guidelines for H pylori treatment that recommend using antibiotic susceptibility to select treatment regimens in the event of 2 treatment failures.⁵ The report also notes that bismuth-based quadruple therapy may not be available in all countries and has a more complex dosing regimen, and that local resistance to levofloxacin must be taken into account when prescribing levofloxacin-based triple therapy.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating levofloxacin-based triple therapy as a secondary treatment regimen for patients with H pylori infection who had failed initial clarithromycin-based triple therapy found cure rates averaging 76% (TABLE).¹ Most of the regimens comprised levofloxacin (500 mg), amoxicillin (1 g), and a PPI (40 mg), all twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Ten-day regimens produced better cure rates than 7-day regimens (84% vs 69%; comparison statistic not supplied).

The meta-analysis also included RCTs evaluating bismuth-based quadruple therapy as secondary treatment, which found cure rates averaging 78%.¹ The regimens varied, comprising bismuth salts (120-600 mg, 2-4 times daily), metronidazole (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), tetracycline (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), and a PPI (40 mg twice daily). Longer duration of therapy produced higher cure rates (7 days=76%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.80 in 29 RCTs with 2097 patients; 10 days=77%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93 in 2 RCTs with 142 patients; 14 days=82%; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88 in 12 RCTs with 831 patients).

Repeating the original clarithromycin-based triple therapy (8 RCTs, 265 patients) produced low cure rates (46%).¹

Metronidazole-based therapy has high cure rate in a homogeneous population

A meta-analysis of 24 RCTs (1611 patients) that evaluated metronidazole-based triple therapy (mostly composed of amoxicillin 750 mg, metronidazole 250 mg, and any of a number of PPIs, all dosed at 40 mg) twice daily for 7 days found cure rates averaging 87% in an exclusively Japanese study population.¹

Comparable cure rates for levofloxacin- and bismuth-based therapy

Six RCTs with a total of 1057 patients compared cure rates for levofloxacin-based triple therapy with bismuth-based quadruple therapy and found no difference.¹

Two earlier meta-analyses not included in the previously described study, comprising 8 RCTs with a total of 613 patients, produced conflicting results. The larger study (15 RCTs, 1462 patients) found no difference in cure rates.² The smaller study (7 RCTs, 787 patients) favored quadruple therapy.³

Continue to: Two secondary antibiotic regimens show similar cure rates

A meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (total 460 patients) that compared susceptibility-guided antibiotic secondary treatment (SGT) with empiric antibiotic secondary treatment found no difference in cure rates, although the largest single RCT (172 patients) favored SGT.⁴

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report (a periodically updated European study group evaluating Helicobacter management) includes expert opinion-based guidelines for H pylori treatment that recommend using antibiotic susceptibility to select treatment regimens in the event of 2 treatment failures.⁵ The report also notes that bismuth-based quadruple therapy may not be available in all countries and has a more complex dosing regimen, and that local resistance to levofloxacin must be taken into account when prescribing levofloxacin-based triple therapy.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating levofloxacin-based triple therapy as a secondary treatment regimen for patients with H pylori infection who had failed initial clarithromycin-based triple therapy found cure rates averaging 76% (TABLE).¹ Most of the regimens comprised levofloxacin (500 mg), amoxicillin (1 g), and a PPI (40 mg), all twice daily for 7 to 10 days. Ten-day regimens produced better cure rates than 7-day regimens (84% vs 69%; comparison statistic not supplied).

The meta-analysis also included RCTs evaluating bismuth-based quadruple therapy as secondary treatment, which found cure rates averaging 78%.¹ The regimens varied, comprising bismuth salts (120-600 mg, 2-4 times daily), metronidazole (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), tetracycline (250-500 mg, 2-4 times daily), and a PPI (40 mg twice daily). Longer duration of therapy produced higher cure rates (7 days=76%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.80 in 29 RCTs with 2097 patients; 10 days=77%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93 in 2 RCTs with 142 patients; 14 days=82%; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88 in 12 RCTs with 831 patients).

Repeating the original clarithromycin-based triple therapy (8 RCTs, 265 patients) produced low cure rates (46%).¹

Metronidazole-based therapy has high cure rate in a homogeneous population

A meta-analysis of 24 RCTs (1611 patients) that evaluated metronidazole-based triple therapy (mostly composed of amoxicillin 750 mg, metronidazole 250 mg, and any of a number of PPIs, all dosed at 40 mg) twice daily for 7 days found cure rates averaging 87% in an exclusively Japanese study population.¹

Comparable cure rates for levofloxacin- and bismuth-based therapy

Six RCTs with a total of 1057 patients compared cure rates for levofloxacin-based triple therapy with bismuth-based quadruple therapy and found no difference.¹

Two earlier meta-analyses not included in the previously described study, comprising 8 RCTs with a total of 613 patients, produced conflicting results. The larger study (15 RCTs, 1462 patients) found no difference in cure rates.² The smaller study (7 RCTs, 787 patients) favored quadruple therapy.³

Continue to: Two secondary antibiotic regimens show similar cure rates

A meta-analysis of 4 RCTs (total 460 patients) that compared susceptibility-guided antibiotic secondary treatment (SGT) with empiric antibiotic secondary treatment found no difference in cure rates, although the largest single RCT (172 patients) favored SGT.⁴

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report (a periodically updated European study group evaluating Helicobacter management) includes expert opinion-based guidelines for H pylori treatment that recommend using antibiotic susceptibility to select treatment regimens in the event of 2 treatment failures.⁵ The report also notes that bismuth-based quadruple therapy may not be available in all countries and has a more complex dosing regimen, and that local resistance to levofloxacin must be taken into account when prescribing levofloxacin-based triple therapy.