When children have a serious illness, some families choose not to disclose the severity to them, reasoning that knowing the extent of the illness may take away their hope. Deciding whether to tell children or adolescents about the seriousness of their disease is a complex judgment and can pose legal, ethical, and moral challenges for parents and care providers.

Default should be inclusion

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends in a new clinical report that the default should be to include children in conversations about their illness in a developmentally appropriate way, to the extent parents are comfortable.

The report, written by Sara Taub, MD and Robert Macauley, MD, MDiv, both in the department of pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, on behalf of the AAP Committee on Bioethics, was published online and appears in the October issue of Pediatrics.

“Rather than taking away hope, as some may fear, this approach of openness may create a space for children to ask their questions, share their concerns, and set goals that are appropriate to the circumstances,” the authors wrote in a press release.

The report offers strategies based on ethical, historical, legal, and cultural considerations when discussing what to share with a child or adolescent.

Some of the AAP’s other recommendations include the following:

• If the parents request nondisclosure, the first response should be seeking to understand why they prefer that stance. The care team members should also explain their position to parents.
• If there is no consensus on disclosure, establishing what each party believes is the minimum information that should be shared is important.
• Additional resources to navigate disagreement may be helpful, such as hospital ethics committees, mediators and patient advocates.
• Conversations with the family should be documented in the medical record.

Children may know more than you think

Dr. Taub said that even very young children may know more about their disease than adults believe.

“Without disclosure,” she said, “as children hear the conversations around them, they glean partial information and may weave together stories that are more frightening than reality.”

Sometimes families and the care team disagree on disclosure and for that scenario, the report offers guidance in finding middle ground.

For instance, when pediatricians feel ethically obligated to share information when parents oppose sharing, “pediatricians can reframe the discussion from whether information should be shared with the patient to what information will be communicated, how, and by whom,” the authors said in a press release.
 

Should you tell 15-year-old paraplegia is likely?

The authors give a case example of a 15-year-old whose spinal tumor likely will lead to paraplegia within weeks. Very few treatment options are available.

The parents ask the care team to avoid any discussions with the child about prognosis, reasoning that the news will be crushing and it’s better to deal with it if or when it happens.

The care team, however, feels compelled to find out about specific activities important to the child that may no longer be feasible with paraplegia.

The parents cite the child’s love of soccer and desire to see the Statue of Liberty. With that information and keeping the parents’ wishes in mind, the team reframes the conversation with the child in terms of goals, acknowledging that mobility may be more difficult in the future.

That conversation leads the child and the family to discuss moving up the trip to New York they had planned.
 

Guidance where there has been little

Timothy Joos, MD, MPH, a pediatrician who practices at a community health center in Seattle, who was not part of the recommendation team, said he was glad to see the AAP issue advice on a complex topic for which there is little practical guidance.

The authors’ case examples were “heart-tugging,” he said, and will help pediatricians work through their own scenarios.

Dr. Joos agreed with the overall premise that the default should be sharing the information.

“One of the foundations of medicine is truthfulness and openness and if we depart from that, we really have to have a good reason,” Dr. Joos said.

He said that since lying to patients should be nonnegotiable for any physician, it may help to talk with the parents first before answering an inquisitive patient’s questions and then have all parties gather for a discussion.

The authors note that AAP’s clinical reports are written by medical experts and reflect the latest evidence. The reports go through several rounds of peer review before they can be approved by the AAP board of directors.

The authors and Dr. Joos report no relevant financial relationships.

When children have a serious illness, some families choose not to disclose the severity to them, reasoning that knowing the extent of the illness may take away their hope. Deciding whether to tell children or adolescents about the seriousness of their disease is a complex judgment and can pose legal, ethical, and moral challenges for parents and care providers.

Default should be inclusion

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends in a new clinical report that the default should be to include children in conversations about their illness in a developmentally appropriate way, to the extent parents are comfortable.

The report, written by Sara Taub, MD and Robert Macauley, MD, MDiv, both in the department of pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, on behalf of the AAP Committee on Bioethics, was published online and appears in the October issue of Pediatrics.

“Rather than taking away hope, as some may fear, this approach of openness may create a space for children to ask their questions, share their concerns, and set goals that are appropriate to the circumstances,” the authors wrote in a press release.

The report offers strategies based on ethical, historical, legal, and cultural considerations when discussing what to share with a child or adolescent.

Some of the AAP’s other recommendations include the following:

• If the parents request nondisclosure, the first response should be seeking to understand why they prefer that stance. The care team members should also explain their position to parents.
• If there is no consensus on disclosure, establishing what each party believes is the minimum information that should be shared is important.
• Additional resources to navigate disagreement may be helpful, such as hospital ethics committees, mediators and patient advocates.
• Conversations with the family should be documented in the medical record.

Children may know more than you think

Dr. Taub said that even very young children may know more about their disease than adults believe.

“Without disclosure,” she said, “as children hear the conversations around them, they glean partial information and may weave together stories that are more frightening than reality.”

Sometimes families and the care team disagree on disclosure and for that scenario, the report offers guidance in finding middle ground.

For instance, when pediatricians feel ethically obligated to share information when parents oppose sharing, “pediatricians can reframe the discussion from whether information should be shared with the patient to what information will be communicated, how, and by whom,” the authors said in a press release.
 

Should you tell 15-year-old paraplegia is likely?

The authors give a case example of a 15-year-old whose spinal tumor likely will lead to paraplegia within weeks. Very few treatment options are available.

The parents ask the care team to avoid any discussions with the child about prognosis, reasoning that the news will be crushing and it’s better to deal with it if or when it happens.

The care team, however, feels compelled to find out about specific activities important to the child that may no longer be feasible with paraplegia.

The parents cite the child’s love of soccer and desire to see the Statue of Liberty. With that information and keeping the parents’ wishes in mind, the team reframes the conversation with the child in terms of goals, acknowledging that mobility may be more difficult in the future.

That conversation leads the child and the family to discuss moving up the trip to New York they had planned.
 

Guidance where there has been little

Timothy Joos, MD, MPH, a pediatrician who practices at a community health center in Seattle, who was not part of the recommendation team, said he was glad to see the AAP issue advice on a complex topic for which there is little practical guidance.

The authors’ case examples were “heart-tugging,” he said, and will help pediatricians work through their own scenarios.

Dr. Joos agreed with the overall premise that the default should be sharing the information.

“One of the foundations of medicine is truthfulness and openness and if we depart from that, we really have to have a good reason,” Dr. Joos said.

He said that since lying to patients should be nonnegotiable for any physician, it may help to talk with the parents first before answering an inquisitive patient’s questions and then have all parties gather for a discussion.

The authors note that AAP’s clinical reports are written by medical experts and reflect the latest evidence. The reports go through several rounds of peer review before they can be approved by the AAP board of directors.

The authors and Dr. Joos report no relevant financial relationships.

When children have a serious illness, some families choose not to disclose the severity to them, reasoning that knowing the extent of the illness may take away their hope. Deciding whether to tell children or adolescents about the seriousness of their disease is a complex judgment and can pose legal, ethical, and moral challenges for parents and care providers.

Default should be inclusion

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends in a new clinical report that the default should be to include children in conversations about their illness in a developmentally appropriate way, to the extent parents are comfortable.

The report, written by Sara Taub, MD and Robert Macauley, MD, MDiv, both in the department of pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, on behalf of the AAP Committee on Bioethics, was published online and appears in the October issue of Pediatrics.

“Rather than taking away hope, as some may fear, this approach of openness may create a space for children to ask their questions, share their concerns, and set goals that are appropriate to the circumstances,” the authors wrote in a press release.

The report offers strategies based on ethical, historical, legal, and cultural considerations when discussing what to share with a child or adolescent.

Some of the AAP’s other recommendations include the following:

• If the parents request nondisclosure, the first response should be seeking to understand why they prefer that stance. The care team members should also explain their position to parents.
• If there is no consensus on disclosure, establishing what each party believes is the minimum information that should be shared is important.
• Additional resources to navigate disagreement may be helpful, such as hospital ethics committees, mediators and patient advocates.
• Conversations with the family should be documented in the medical record.

Children may know more than you think

Dr. Taub said that even very young children may know more about their disease than adults believe.

“Without disclosure,” she said, “as children hear the conversations around them, they glean partial information and may weave together stories that are more frightening than reality.”

Sometimes families and the care team disagree on disclosure and for that scenario, the report offers guidance in finding middle ground.

For instance, when pediatricians feel ethically obligated to share information when parents oppose sharing, “pediatricians can reframe the discussion from whether information should be shared with the patient to what information will be communicated, how, and by whom,” the authors said in a press release.
 

Should you tell 15-year-old paraplegia is likely?

The authors give a case example of a 15-year-old whose spinal tumor likely will lead to paraplegia within weeks. Very few treatment options are available.

The parents ask the care team to avoid any discussions with the child about prognosis, reasoning that the news will be crushing and it’s better to deal with it if or when it happens.

The care team, however, feels compelled to find out about specific activities important to the child that may no longer be feasible with paraplegia.

The parents cite the child’s love of soccer and desire to see the Statue of Liberty. With that information and keeping the parents’ wishes in mind, the team reframes the conversation with the child in terms of goals, acknowledging that mobility may be more difficult in the future.

That conversation leads the child and the family to discuss moving up the trip to New York they had planned.
 

Guidance where there has been little

Timothy Joos, MD, MPH, a pediatrician who practices at a community health center in Seattle, who was not part of the recommendation team, said he was glad to see the AAP issue advice on a complex topic for which there is little practical guidance.

The authors’ case examples were “heart-tugging,” he said, and will help pediatricians work through their own scenarios.

Dr. Joos agreed with the overall premise that the default should be sharing the information.

“One of the foundations of medicine is truthfulness and openness and if we depart from that, we really have to have a good reason,” Dr. Joos said.

He said that since lying to patients should be nonnegotiable for any physician, it may help to talk with the parents first before answering an inquisitive patient’s questions and then have all parties gather for a discussion.

The authors note that AAP’s clinical reports are written by medical experts and reflect the latest evidence. The reports go through several rounds of peer review before they can be approved by the AAP board of directors.

The authors and Dr. Joos report no relevant financial relationships.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vegetarian diets may reduce the risk for gastric and colorectal cancers, according to the results of a meta-analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers did a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven original studies (six cohorts and one case-control) involving 686,691 people.
• Pooled relative risk for gastric, colorectal, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were assessed with confidence intervals in multivariate analysis accounting for potential confounders.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with nonvegetarian diets, vegetarian diets were inversely associated with the risk for GI tumor development (relative risk, 0.77).
• In a subgroup analysis, vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for gastric cancer (RR, 0.41) and colorectal cancer (RR, 0.85) but not with upper GI cancer (excluding stomach; RR, 0.93).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in men (RR, 0.57) but not women (RR, 0.89).
• Vegetarian diets were negatively correlated with the risk for GI cancer in North American (RR, 0.76) and Asian populations (RR, 0.43) but not in European populations (RR, 0.83).

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this systematic review indicate that adherence to vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, compared with non-vegetarian diets. This study provides a reference for primary prevention strategies for gastrointestinal cancers,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Tongtong Bai, of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, was published online on in the European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The effects of vegetarian diets on GI tumorigenesis may be influenced by gender and geographical region. The heterogeneity of effects of vegetarian diets on different GI cancers could be due to the small number of studies included and could represent chance variation. The results need to be confirmed by studies of populations in other regions. There was evidence of publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

There have been several recent developments in the treatment of B-cell lymphoma; however, one of the most significant advances has been the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy is a type of personalized immunotherapy that can help cure some people with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common form of aggressive NHL. CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies over the past 5 years, with impressive response rates and durable remissions for patients who previously had no viable options. This strategy is highly effective in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, as well as mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and multiple myeloma, as evidenced by recent regulatory approvals. 

The initial products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel)— both FDA approved in 2017—involve administration of autologous T-cells programmed to express a CAR targeting the B-cell marker CD19. 

In 2021, the FDA also approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a new CAR T-cell therapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (nonresponsive) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have been treated with at least 2 prior lines of therapy. These products have design differences, including differences in the costimulatory domain, mechanism of gene/transgene delivery, ability for cryopreservation, and need for T-cell selection.

The CAR T-cell therapy axi-cel demonstrated superior results in the ZUMA-7 clinical trial, which compared CAR T-cell therapy directly to traditional chemotherapy with intended autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). About 55% of patients were still alive 4 years after receiving axi-cel, compared with 46% of those who initially received the standard treatment for relapsed disease. Based on these results, axi-cel is now the preferred treatment for people whose DLBCL has recurred with 12 months of front-line treatment or who are resistant to standard initial treatment.

Additionally, the BELINDA trial was a randomized phase 3 trial that compared CAR T-cell therapy with liso-cel with second-line chemotherapy with planned ASCT. Like ZUMA-7, this study also demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard treatment. As such, CAR T-cell therapy represents the new standard of care for second-line treatment in appropriate patients with refractory or early relapsing LBCL.

There have been several other recent studies on the use of CAR T-cell therapy for B-cell lymphoma. One study, published in Blood Advances (2023), found that receiving a greater number of therapies prior to CAR T-cell therapy is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with aggressive relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. The study, which included 514 patients from 13 centers treated with CAR-T for aggressive B-cell NHL between 2015 and 2021, found that a greater number of lines of therapy before CAR-T apheresis and bridging therapy were predictive of inferior PFS and overall survival. 

Another study compared 2 CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatments, axi-cel and tisa-cel, with ASCT in the second line setting for LBCL. The study found that axi-cel was superior to ASCT, with longer median event-free survival and a higher response rate. However, tisa-cel was not found to be superior to ASCT. Further studies will be needed to definitively characterize the relative benefits of CAR-T cell therapies and standard second-line treatments for different subgroups of patients with LBCL. 

An increasing number of effective targeted agents for DLBCL, including novel monoclonal antibodies (tafasitamab) and antibody-drug conjugates (polatuzumab vedotin and loncastuximab teserine), are being used in earlier lines of therapy. Additionally, 2 anti-CD20 bispecific antibodies (epcoritamab and glofitamab) have gained approval for relapsed/refractory DLBCL due to high response rates. Future studies will be needed to determine if treatment with these agents can produce durable remissions like that of CAR-T cell therapy.

There have been several recent developments in the treatment of B-cell lymphoma; however, one of the most significant advances has been the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy is a type of personalized immunotherapy that can help cure some people with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common form of aggressive NHL. CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies over the past 5 years, with impressive response rates and durable remissions for patients who previously had no viable options. This strategy is highly effective in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, as well as mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and multiple myeloma, as evidenced by recent regulatory approvals. 

The initial products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel)— both FDA approved in 2017—involve administration of autologous T-cells programmed to express a CAR targeting the B-cell marker CD19. 

In 2021, the FDA also approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a new CAR T-cell therapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (nonresponsive) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have been treated with at least 2 prior lines of therapy. These products have design differences, including differences in the costimulatory domain, mechanism of gene/transgene delivery, ability for cryopreservation, and need for T-cell selection.

The CAR T-cell therapy axi-cel demonstrated superior results in the ZUMA-7 clinical trial, which compared CAR T-cell therapy directly to traditional chemotherapy with intended autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). About 55% of patients were still alive 4 years after receiving axi-cel, compared with 46% of those who initially received the standard treatment for relapsed disease. Based on these results, axi-cel is now the preferred treatment for people whose DLBCL has recurred with 12 months of front-line treatment or who are resistant to standard initial treatment.

Additionally, the BELINDA trial was a randomized phase 3 trial that compared CAR T-cell therapy with liso-cel with second-line chemotherapy with planned ASCT. Like ZUMA-7, this study also demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard treatment. As such, CAR T-cell therapy represents the new standard of care for second-line treatment in appropriate patients with refractory or early relapsing LBCL.

There have been several other recent studies on the use of CAR T-cell therapy for B-cell lymphoma. One study, published in Blood Advances (2023), found that receiving a greater number of therapies prior to CAR T-cell therapy is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with aggressive relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. The study, which included 514 patients from 13 centers treated with CAR-T for aggressive B-cell NHL between 2015 and 2021, found that a greater number of lines of therapy before CAR-T apheresis and bridging therapy were predictive of inferior PFS and overall survival. 

Another study compared 2 CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatments, axi-cel and tisa-cel, with ASCT in the second line setting for LBCL. The study found that axi-cel was superior to ASCT, with longer median event-free survival and a higher response rate. However, tisa-cel was not found to be superior to ASCT. Further studies will be needed to definitively characterize the relative benefits of CAR-T cell therapies and standard second-line treatments for different subgroups of patients with LBCL. 

An increasing number of effective targeted agents for DLBCL, including novel monoclonal antibodies (tafasitamab) and antibody-drug conjugates (polatuzumab vedotin and loncastuximab teserine), are being used in earlier lines of therapy. Additionally, 2 anti-CD20 bispecific antibodies (epcoritamab and glofitamab) have gained approval for relapsed/refractory DLBCL due to high response rates. Future studies will be needed to determine if treatment with these agents can produce durable remissions like that of CAR-T cell therapy.

There have been several recent developments in the treatment of B-cell lymphoma; however, one of the most significant advances has been the development of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy is a type of personalized immunotherapy that can help cure some people with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common form of aggressive NHL. CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of hematologic malignancies over the past 5 years, with impressive response rates and durable remissions for patients who previously had no viable options. This strategy is highly effective in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL, as well as mantle cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and multiple myeloma, as evidenced by recent regulatory approvals. 

The initial products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel)— both FDA approved in 2017—involve administration of autologous T-cells programmed to express a CAR targeting the B-cell marker CD19. 

In 2021, the FDA also approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), a new CAR T-cell therapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (nonresponsive) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have been treated with at least 2 prior lines of therapy. These products have design differences, including differences in the costimulatory domain, mechanism of gene/transgene delivery, ability for cryopreservation, and need for T-cell selection.

The CAR T-cell therapy axi-cel demonstrated superior results in the ZUMA-7 clinical trial, which compared CAR T-cell therapy directly to traditional chemotherapy with intended autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). About 55% of patients were still alive 4 years after receiving axi-cel, compared with 46% of those who initially received the standard treatment for relapsed disease. Based on these results, axi-cel is now the preferred treatment for people whose DLBCL has recurred with 12 months of front-line treatment or who are resistant to standard initial treatment.

Additionally, the BELINDA trial was a randomized phase 3 trial that compared CAR T-cell therapy with liso-cel with second-line chemotherapy with planned ASCT. Like ZUMA-7, this study also demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard treatment. As such, CAR T-cell therapy represents the new standard of care for second-line treatment in appropriate patients with refractory or early relapsing LBCL.

There have been several other recent studies on the use of CAR T-cell therapy for B-cell lymphoma. One study, published in Blood Advances (2023), found that receiving a greater number of therapies prior to CAR T-cell therapy is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with aggressive relapsed/refractory B-cell NHL. The study, which included 514 patients from 13 centers treated with CAR-T for aggressive B-cell NHL between 2015 and 2021, found that a greater number of lines of therapy before CAR-T apheresis and bridging therapy were predictive of inferior PFS and overall survival. 

Another study compared 2 CD19-targeting CAR T-cell treatments, axi-cel and tisa-cel, with ASCT in the second line setting for LBCL. The study found that axi-cel was superior to ASCT, with longer median event-free survival and a higher response rate. However, tisa-cel was not found to be superior to ASCT. Further studies will be needed to definitively characterize the relative benefits of CAR-T cell therapies and standard second-line treatments for different subgroups of patients with LBCL. 

An increasing number of effective targeted agents for DLBCL, including novel monoclonal antibodies (tafasitamab) and antibody-drug conjugates (polatuzumab vedotin and loncastuximab teserine), are being used in earlier lines of therapy. Additionally, 2 anti-CD20 bispecific antibodies (epcoritamab and glofitamab) have gained approval for relapsed/refractory DLBCL due to high response rates. Future studies will be needed to determine if treatment with these agents can produce durable remissions like that of CAR-T cell therapy.

Patients with chronic insomnia that does not improve with nonpharmacologic techniques often develop tolerance to sedative medications (benzodiazepines) prescribed for nightly use. When nonbenzodiazepine medications are used, tachyphylaxis can develop and these medications no longer initiate or maintain sleep. Strategies that alternate between these 2 types of agents are simple to follow and may allow patients to maintain sensitivity to both types of medications. In this article, I review the types, causes, evaluation, and treatment of insomnia; describe an alternating medication strategy to help patients avoid developing tolerance/tachyphylaxis; and present 3 fictional case vignettes to illustrate this approach.

A common, troubling condition

Insomnia is a common problem among psychiatric patients. Approximately 30% to 50% of adults experience occasional, short-term (<3 months) insomnia, and 5% to 10% experience chronic (≥3 months) insomnia,¹ with associated negative impacts on health and quality of life. Insomnia is sometimes primary and may have a hereditary component, but more often is associated with medical, neurologic, or psychiatric disorders.

Patterns of insomnia include difficulty falling asleep (initial or sleep-onset insomnia), remaining asleep (middle or sleep-maintenance insomnia), or falling back asleep after early awakening (late or sleep-offset insomnia). Sleep-onset insomnia correlates with high levels of anxiety and worrying, but once asleep, patients usually stay asleep. Sleep-maintenance problems involve multiple awakenings after falling asleep and taking hours to fall back to sleep. These patients experience inadequate sleep when they must wake up early for school or work. Early-awakening patients report feeling wide awake by 4 to 5 am and being unable to get back to sleep.

Caffeine is an important consideration for patients with sleep difficulties. Its use is widespread in much of the world, whether ingested as coffee, tea, in soft drinks, or in “energy” drinks that may contain as much as 200 mg of caffeine (twice the amount in a typical cup of brewed coffee). Caffeine may also be ingested as an ingredient of medications for headache or migraine. While some individuals maintain that they can fall asleep easily after drinking caffeinated coffee, many may not recognize the amount of caffeine they consume and its negative impact on sleep.² Author Michael Pollan stopped use of all caffeine and reported on the surprising positive effect on his sleep.³

Patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders are likely to experience insomnia intermittently or chronically, and insomnia predisposes some individuals to develop mood and anxiety symptoms.⁴ Patients with insomnia often experience anxiety focused on a fear of not getting adequate sleep, which creates a vicious cycle in which hyperarousal associated with fear of not sleeping complicates other causes of insomnia. A patient’s chronotype (preference for the time of day in which they carry out activities vs sleeping) also may play a role in sleep difficulties (Box⁵).

Box

Certain medications may contribute to insomnia, particularly stimulants. It is important to understand and explain to patients the time frame during which immediate-release or extended-release (ER) stimulants are active, which varies in individuals depending on liver enzyme activity. Other commonly used psychotropic medications—including bupropion, modafinil, armodafinil, atomoxetine, amphetamine salts, and methylphenidate—may interfere with sleep if used later in the day.⁶

Patients typically do not mention their use of alcohol and/or marijuana unless asked. Those who are binge drinkers or alcohol-dependent may expect alcohol to help them fall asleep, but usually find their sleep is disrupted and difficult to maintain. Patients may use marijuana to help them sleep, particularly marijuana high in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). While it may help with sleep initiation, THC can disrupt sleep maintenance. Cannabidiol does not have intrinsic sedating effects and may even interfere with sleep.^7,8

Continue to: Women may be more likely...

Women may be more likely than men to experience insomnia.⁹ The onset of menopause can bring hot flashes that interfere with sleep.

Women with a history of mood disorders are more likely to have a history of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, postpartum depression, and unusual responses to oral contraceptives.¹⁰ These women are more likely to report problems with mood, energy, and sleep at perimenopause. Treatment with estrogen replacement may be an option for women without risk factors, such as clotting disorders, smoking history, or a personal or family history of breast or uterine cancer. For many who are not candidates for or who refuse estrogen replacement, use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor at low doses may help with vasomotor symptoms but not with insomnia.

Insomnia symptoms typically increase with age.¹¹ When sleep is adequate early in life but becomes a problem in midlife, an individual’s eating habits, obesity, and lack of exercise may be contributing factors. The typical American diet includes highly refined carbohydrates with excess salt; such foods are often readily available to the exclusion of healthy options. Overweight and obese patients may insist they eat a healthy diet with 3 meals per day, but a careful history often uncovers nighttime binge eating. Nighttime binge eating is rarely reported. This not only maintains obesity, but also interferes with sleep, since patients stay up late to avoid discovery by family members.¹² This lack of sleep can lead to an endless loop because insufficient sleep is a risk factor for obesity.¹³

Evaluating sleep difficulties

New patient evaluations should include a careful history beginning with childhood, including personal early childhood history and family psychiatric history. Patients often report the onset of sleep difficulty and anxiety during childhood, which should raise further questions about aspects of mood regulation from early life such as concentration, energy, motivation, appetite, and academic performance. While many children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder due to concentration problems that cause difficulties at school, be aware this might be part of a syndrome related to mood regulation.¹⁴ Unexpected responses to an SSRI—such as agitation, euphoria, or an immediate response with the first dose—should also raise suspicion of a mood disorder. Once the underlying mood disorder is stabilized, many patients report improved sleep.¹⁵

If a patient reports having difficulty falling and remaining asleep but is not sure if there is a pattern, keeping a sleep diary can help. Further questioning may uncover the cause. Does the patient have spontaneous jerks of lower extremities (restless leg syndrome) that interfere with falling asleep or wake them up? Have they noticed problems with dreams/nightmares that wake them, which could be associated with posttraumatic stress, anxiety, or depression? Have they been told by a partner that they act out dreams or are seemingly awake but not responsive, which could point to REM sleep behavior disorder or early Parkinson’s disease? Referral to a sleep laboratory and a neurologist can help establish the correct diagnosis and point to appropriate treatment.^16-18

Treatment options

Several cognitive-behavioral techniques, including cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), yogic breathing, progressive relaxation, mindfulness meditation, and sleep hygiene techniques may help considerably,^19,20 but insomnia often remains difficult to treat. Pharmacotherapy is not necessarily more effective than nonpharmacologic approaches. Both options require the patient to take initiative to either find nonpharmacologic approaches or discuss the problem with a physician and agree to take medication.²¹ A trial comparing CBT-I to sedatives or the combination of CBT-I plus sedatives found higher rates of sleep with CBT-I for 3 months, after which improvement fluctuated; the combination showed sustained improvement for the entire 6-month trial.²² CBT-I has also been shown to be as effective with patients who do not have psychiatric illness as for those who are depressed, anxious, or stressed.²³ However, behavioral techniques that require regular practice may be difficult for individuals to maintain, particularly when they are depressed or anxious.

Continue to: Clinicians should understand...

Clinicians should understand the distinctions among the various types of pharmacotherapy for insomnia. Sedative-hypnotics include medications with varying half-lives and metabolic pathways. Short-acting benzodiazepines such as triazolam or alprazolam and the “z-drugs” zolpidem or zaleplon may help initiate sleep in patients with sleep-onset insomnia. Longer-acting benzodiazepines such as diazepam, clonazepam, or temazepam and the z-drug eszopiclone may also help with sleep maintenance.²³ Based on my clinical experience, individual patients may respond better to 1 type of medication over another, or even to different agents within the same class of sedative-hypnotics.

Some clinicians prescribe nonbenzodiazepine medications for sleep, such as doxepin (which is FDA-approved for treating insomnia) or off-label trazodone, mirtazapine, or quetiapine. Their antihistaminic properties confer sedating effects. Virtually all over-the-counter (OTC) medications for insomnia are antihistaminic. These OTC medications are not designed to treat insomnia, and the optimal dosage to maintain sleep without daytime sedation must be determined by trial and error. Sedating nonbenzodiazepine medications may be slowly absorbed if taken at bedtime (depending on whether they are taken with or without food) and cause daytime sedation and cognitive slowness in patients with sleep-onset and maintenance insomnia who must wake up early. Starting trazodone at 50 to 75 mg may cause slow metabolizers to wake up with considerable sedation, while fast metabolizers might never feel soundly asleep.²⁴

Patients with mood and anxiety disorders that complicate insomnia are often prescribed second-generation antipsychotics such as quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine, which are sedating as well as mood-stabilizing. These approaches require careful attention to titrating doses and timing their use.

Problems with pharmacotherapy

When either benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine medications are used on a long-standing, nightly basis, they often stop working well. It is not unusual that after days to weeks of taking a benzodiazepine, patients find they no longer stay asleep but can’t fall asleep if they don’t take them. Once tolerance develops, the individual experiences pharmacologic withdrawal with an inability to fall asleep or stay asleep. The medication becomes necessary but ineffective, and many patients increase their use to higher doses to fall asleep, and sometimes in early morning to maintain sleep. This leads to negative effects on cognition, coordination/balance, and mood during the day, especially in older patients.

Nonbenzodiazepine sedating medications do not lead to pharmacologic tolerance but do lead to tachyphylaxis as the CNS attempts to downregulate sedation to keep the organism safe. For some patients, this happens quickly, within a matter of days.²⁵ Others increase doses to stay asleep. For example, a patient with a starting dose of trazodone 75 mg/d might increase the dosage to 300 mg/d. While trazodone is approved in doses of 300 to 600 mg as an antidepressant, it is preferable to keep doses lower when used only for sedation.

Continue to: An alternating medication strategy

Alternating between medications from different classes can help patients avoid developing tolerance with benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis as occurs with antihistaminic medications. It can be effective for patients with primary insomnia as well as for those whose sleep problems are associated with mood or anxiety disorders. Patients typically maintain sensitivity to any form of pharmacologic sedation for several nights without loss of effect but need to take a break to maintain the sedation effect. For example, in 1 case study, a 30-year-old female who rapidly developed tachyphylaxis to the sedative action of mirtazapine experienced a return of the medication’s sedative effects after taking a 3-day break.²⁵

To initiate an alternating strategy, the clinician must first help the patient establish a sedating dose of 2 medications from different classes, such as trazodone and zolpidem, and then instruct the patient to use each for 2 to 3 consecutive nights on an alternating basis. Patients can use calendars or pillboxes to avoid confusion about which medication to take on a given night. In many cases, this approach can work indefinitely.

The following 3 case vignettes illustrate how this alternating medication strategy can work.

CASE 1

Mr. B, age 58, is a married salesman whose territory includes 3 states. He drives from client to client from Monday through Thursday each week, staying overnight in hotels. He is comfortable talking to clients, has a close and supportive relationship with his wife, and enjoys socializing with friends. Mr. B has a high level of trait anxiety and perfectionism and is proud of his sales record throughout his career, but this leads to insomnia during his nights on the road, and often on Sunday night as he starts anticipating the week ahead. Mr. B denies having a depressed mood or cognitive problems. When on vacation with his wife he has no trouble sleeping. He has no psychiatric family history or any substantial medical problems. He simply wishes that he could sleep on work nights.

We set up an alternating medication approach. Mr. B takes trazodone 100 mg on the first night and 150 mg on the second and third nights. He then takes triazolam 0.25 mg for 2 nights; previously, he had found that zolpidem did not work as well for maintaining sleep. He can sleep adequately for the 2 weekend nights, then restarts the alternating pattern. Mr. B has done well with this regimen for >10 years.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. C, age 60, is widowed and has a successful career as a corporate attorney. She has been anxious since early childhood and has had trouble falling asleep for much of her life. Once she falls asleep on her sofa—often between 1 and 2 am—Ms. C can sleep soundly for 7 to 8 hours, but early morning work meetings require her to set an alarm for 6 am daily. Ms. C feels irritable and anxious on awakening but arrives at her office by 7:30 am, where she maintains a full schedule, with frequent 12-hour workdays. Ms. C did not experience significant insomnia or hot flashes with menopause at age 52 and does not use hormone replacement therapy.

Ms. C denies having depression, but experienced appropriate grief related to her husband’s illness and death from metastatic cancer 3 years ago. At the time, her internist prescribed escitalopram and zolpidem; escitalopram caused greater agitation and distress, so she stopped it after 10 days. Zolpidem 10 mg/d allowed her to sleep but she worried about taking it because her mother had long-standing sedative dependence. Ms. C lives alone, but her adult children live nearby, and she has a strong support system that includes colleagues at her firm, friends at her book club, and a support group for partners of cancer patients.

Ms. C tries trazodone, starting with 50 mg, but reports feeling agitated rather than sleepy and has cognitive fogginess in the morning. She is switched to quetiapine 50 mg, which she tolerates well and allows her to sleep soundly. To avoid developing tachyphylaxis with quetiapine, she takes eszopiclone 3 mg for 2 nights, alternating with quetiapine for 3 nights. This strategy allows her to reliably fall asleep by 11 pm, wake up at 6 am, and feel rested throughout the day.

CASE 3

Ms. D, age 55, is married with a long-standing diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, and depression so severe she is unable to work as a preschool teacher. She notes that past clinicians have prescribed a wide array of antidepressants and benzodiazepines but she remains anxious, agitated, and unable to sleep. She worries constantly about running out of benzodiazepines, which are “the only medication that helps me.” At the time of evaluation, her medications are venlafaxine ER 150 mg/d, lorazepam 1 mg 3 times daily and 2 mg at bedtime, and buspirone 15 mg 3 times daily, which she admits to not taking. She is overweight and does not exercise. She spends her days snacking and watching television. She can’t settle down enough to read and feels overwhelmed most of the time. Her adult children won’t allow her to babysit their young children because she dozes during the day.

Ms. D has a strong family history of psychiatric illness, including a father with bipolar I disorder and alcohol use disorder and a sister with schizoaffective disorder. Ms. D has never felt overtly manic, but has spent most of her life feeling depressed, anxious, and hopeless, and at times she has wished she was dead. She has had poor responses to many antidepressants, with transient euphoria followed by more anxiety.

Continue to: Rather than major depressive disorder...

Rather than major depressive disorder or GAD, Ms. D’s symptoms better meet the criteria for bipolar II disorder. She agrees to a slow taper of venlafaxine and a slow increase of divalproex, starting with 125 mg each evening. While taking venlafaxine 75 mg/d and divalproex 375 mg/d, she experiences distinct improvement in anxiety and agitation, which further improve after venlafaxine is stopped and divalproex is increased to 750 mg in the evening. She finds that she forgets daytime doses of lorazepam but depends on it to fall asleep. While taking quetiapine 50 mg and lorazepam 1 mg at bedtime, Ms. D reports sleeping soundly and feeling alert in the morning. Over several weeks, she tapers lorazepam slowly by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. She finds she needs a higher dose of quetiapine to stay asleep, eventually requiring 400 mg each night. Ms. D says overall she feels better but is distressed because she has gained 25 lbs since starting divalproex and quetiapine.

To avoid further increases in quetiapine and maintain its sedating effect, Ms. D is switched to an alternating schedule of clonazepam 1.5 mg for 2 nights and quetiapine 300 mg for 3 nights. She agrees to begin exercising by walking in her neighborhood daily, and gradually increases this to 1 hour per day. After starting to exercise regularly, she finds she is oversedated by quetiapine at night, so she is gradually decreased to a dose of 150 mg, while still alternating with clonazepam 1.5 mg. Ms. D loses most of the weight she had gained and begins volunteering as a reading coach in the elementary school in her neighborhood.

Bottom Line

Patients with chronic insomnia can often maintain adequate sedation without developing tolerance to benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis with nonsedating agents by using 2 sleep medications that have different mechanisms of action on an alternating schedule.

Related Resources

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2): 307-349. doi:10.5664/jcsm.6470
• Muppavarapu K, Muthukanagaraj M, Saeed SA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia: a review of 8 studies. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):40-46. doi:10.12788/cp.0040

Drug Brand Names

Alprazolam • Xanax
Armodafinil • Nuvigil
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Diazepam • Valium
Divalproex • Depakote
Doxepin • Sinequan
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Modafinil • Provigil
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Temazepam • Restoril
Trazodone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien

Patients with chronic insomnia that does not improve with nonpharmacologic techniques often develop tolerance to sedative medications (benzodiazepines) prescribed for nightly use. When nonbenzodiazepine medications are used, tachyphylaxis can develop and these medications no longer initiate or maintain sleep. Strategies that alternate between these 2 types of agents are simple to follow and may allow patients to maintain sensitivity to both types of medications. In this article, I review the types, causes, evaluation, and treatment of insomnia; describe an alternating medication strategy to help patients avoid developing tolerance/tachyphylaxis; and present 3 fictional case vignettes to illustrate this approach.

A common, troubling condition

Insomnia is a common problem among psychiatric patients. Approximately 30% to 50% of adults experience occasional, short-term (<3 months) insomnia, and 5% to 10% experience chronic (≥3 months) insomnia,¹ with associated negative impacts on health and quality of life. Insomnia is sometimes primary and may have a hereditary component, but more often is associated with medical, neurologic, or psychiatric disorders.

Patterns of insomnia include difficulty falling asleep (initial or sleep-onset insomnia), remaining asleep (middle or sleep-maintenance insomnia), or falling back asleep after early awakening (late or sleep-offset insomnia). Sleep-onset insomnia correlates with high levels of anxiety and worrying, but once asleep, patients usually stay asleep. Sleep-maintenance problems involve multiple awakenings after falling asleep and taking hours to fall back to sleep. These patients experience inadequate sleep when they must wake up early for school or work. Early-awakening patients report feeling wide awake by 4 to 5 am and being unable to get back to sleep.

Caffeine is an important consideration for patients with sleep difficulties. Its use is widespread in much of the world, whether ingested as coffee, tea, in soft drinks, or in “energy” drinks that may contain as much as 200 mg of caffeine (twice the amount in a typical cup of brewed coffee). Caffeine may also be ingested as an ingredient of medications for headache or migraine. While some individuals maintain that they can fall asleep easily after drinking caffeinated coffee, many may not recognize the amount of caffeine they consume and its negative impact on sleep.² Author Michael Pollan stopped use of all caffeine and reported on the surprising positive effect on his sleep.³

Patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders are likely to experience insomnia intermittently or chronically, and insomnia predisposes some individuals to develop mood and anxiety symptoms.⁴ Patients with insomnia often experience anxiety focused on a fear of not getting adequate sleep, which creates a vicious cycle in which hyperarousal associated with fear of not sleeping complicates other causes of insomnia. A patient’s chronotype (preference for the time of day in which they carry out activities vs sleeping) also may play a role in sleep difficulties (Box⁵).

Box

Certain medications may contribute to insomnia, particularly stimulants. It is important to understand and explain to patients the time frame during which immediate-release or extended-release (ER) stimulants are active, which varies in individuals depending on liver enzyme activity. Other commonly used psychotropic medications—including bupropion, modafinil, armodafinil, atomoxetine, amphetamine salts, and methylphenidate—may interfere with sleep if used later in the day.⁶

Patients typically do not mention their use of alcohol and/or marijuana unless asked. Those who are binge drinkers or alcohol-dependent may expect alcohol to help them fall asleep, but usually find their sleep is disrupted and difficult to maintain. Patients may use marijuana to help them sleep, particularly marijuana high in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). While it may help with sleep initiation, THC can disrupt sleep maintenance. Cannabidiol does not have intrinsic sedating effects and may even interfere with sleep.^7,8

Continue to: Women may be more likely...

Women may be more likely than men to experience insomnia.⁹ The onset of menopause can bring hot flashes that interfere with sleep.

Women with a history of mood disorders are more likely to have a history of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, postpartum depression, and unusual responses to oral contraceptives.¹⁰ These women are more likely to report problems with mood, energy, and sleep at perimenopause. Treatment with estrogen replacement may be an option for women without risk factors, such as clotting disorders, smoking history, or a personal or family history of breast or uterine cancer. For many who are not candidates for or who refuse estrogen replacement, use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor at low doses may help with vasomotor symptoms but not with insomnia.

Insomnia symptoms typically increase with age.¹¹ When sleep is adequate early in life but becomes a problem in midlife, an individual’s eating habits, obesity, and lack of exercise may be contributing factors. The typical American diet includes highly refined carbohydrates with excess salt; such foods are often readily available to the exclusion of healthy options. Overweight and obese patients may insist they eat a healthy diet with 3 meals per day, but a careful history often uncovers nighttime binge eating. Nighttime binge eating is rarely reported. This not only maintains obesity, but also interferes with sleep, since patients stay up late to avoid discovery by family members.¹² This lack of sleep can lead to an endless loop because insufficient sleep is a risk factor for obesity.¹³

Evaluating sleep difficulties

New patient evaluations should include a careful history beginning with childhood, including personal early childhood history and family psychiatric history. Patients often report the onset of sleep difficulty and anxiety during childhood, which should raise further questions about aspects of mood regulation from early life such as concentration, energy, motivation, appetite, and academic performance. While many children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder due to concentration problems that cause difficulties at school, be aware this might be part of a syndrome related to mood regulation.¹⁴ Unexpected responses to an SSRI—such as agitation, euphoria, or an immediate response with the first dose—should also raise suspicion of a mood disorder. Once the underlying mood disorder is stabilized, many patients report improved sleep.¹⁵

If a patient reports having difficulty falling and remaining asleep but is not sure if there is a pattern, keeping a sleep diary can help. Further questioning may uncover the cause. Does the patient have spontaneous jerks of lower extremities (restless leg syndrome) that interfere with falling asleep or wake them up? Have they noticed problems with dreams/nightmares that wake them, which could be associated with posttraumatic stress, anxiety, or depression? Have they been told by a partner that they act out dreams or are seemingly awake but not responsive, which could point to REM sleep behavior disorder or early Parkinson’s disease? Referral to a sleep laboratory and a neurologist can help establish the correct diagnosis and point to appropriate treatment.^16-18

Treatment options

Several cognitive-behavioral techniques, including cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), yogic breathing, progressive relaxation, mindfulness meditation, and sleep hygiene techniques may help considerably,^19,20 but insomnia often remains difficult to treat. Pharmacotherapy is not necessarily more effective than nonpharmacologic approaches. Both options require the patient to take initiative to either find nonpharmacologic approaches or discuss the problem with a physician and agree to take medication.²¹ A trial comparing CBT-I to sedatives or the combination of CBT-I plus sedatives found higher rates of sleep with CBT-I for 3 months, after which improvement fluctuated; the combination showed sustained improvement for the entire 6-month trial.²² CBT-I has also been shown to be as effective with patients who do not have psychiatric illness as for those who are depressed, anxious, or stressed.²³ However, behavioral techniques that require regular practice may be difficult for individuals to maintain, particularly when they are depressed or anxious.

Continue to: Clinicians should understand...

Clinicians should understand the distinctions among the various types of pharmacotherapy for insomnia. Sedative-hypnotics include medications with varying half-lives and metabolic pathways. Short-acting benzodiazepines such as triazolam or alprazolam and the “z-drugs” zolpidem or zaleplon may help initiate sleep in patients with sleep-onset insomnia. Longer-acting benzodiazepines such as diazepam, clonazepam, or temazepam and the z-drug eszopiclone may also help with sleep maintenance.²³ Based on my clinical experience, individual patients may respond better to 1 type of medication over another, or even to different agents within the same class of sedative-hypnotics.

Some clinicians prescribe nonbenzodiazepine medications for sleep, such as doxepin (which is FDA-approved for treating insomnia) or off-label trazodone, mirtazapine, or quetiapine. Their antihistaminic properties confer sedating effects. Virtually all over-the-counter (OTC) medications for insomnia are antihistaminic. These OTC medications are not designed to treat insomnia, and the optimal dosage to maintain sleep without daytime sedation must be determined by trial and error. Sedating nonbenzodiazepine medications may be slowly absorbed if taken at bedtime (depending on whether they are taken with or without food) and cause daytime sedation and cognitive slowness in patients with sleep-onset and maintenance insomnia who must wake up early. Starting trazodone at 50 to 75 mg may cause slow metabolizers to wake up with considerable sedation, while fast metabolizers might never feel soundly asleep.²⁴

Patients with mood and anxiety disorders that complicate insomnia are often prescribed second-generation antipsychotics such as quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine, which are sedating as well as mood-stabilizing. These approaches require careful attention to titrating doses and timing their use.

Problems with pharmacotherapy

When either benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine medications are used on a long-standing, nightly basis, they often stop working well. It is not unusual that after days to weeks of taking a benzodiazepine, patients find they no longer stay asleep but can’t fall asleep if they don’t take them. Once tolerance develops, the individual experiences pharmacologic withdrawal with an inability to fall asleep or stay asleep. The medication becomes necessary but ineffective, and many patients increase their use to higher doses to fall asleep, and sometimes in early morning to maintain sleep. This leads to negative effects on cognition, coordination/balance, and mood during the day, especially in older patients.

Nonbenzodiazepine sedating medications do not lead to pharmacologic tolerance but do lead to tachyphylaxis as the CNS attempts to downregulate sedation to keep the organism safe. For some patients, this happens quickly, within a matter of days.²⁵ Others increase doses to stay asleep. For example, a patient with a starting dose of trazodone 75 mg/d might increase the dosage to 300 mg/d. While trazodone is approved in doses of 300 to 600 mg as an antidepressant, it is preferable to keep doses lower when used only for sedation.

Continue to: An alternating medication strategy

Alternating between medications from different classes can help patients avoid developing tolerance with benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis as occurs with antihistaminic medications. It can be effective for patients with primary insomnia as well as for those whose sleep problems are associated with mood or anxiety disorders. Patients typically maintain sensitivity to any form of pharmacologic sedation for several nights without loss of effect but need to take a break to maintain the sedation effect. For example, in 1 case study, a 30-year-old female who rapidly developed tachyphylaxis to the sedative action of mirtazapine experienced a return of the medication’s sedative effects after taking a 3-day break.²⁵

To initiate an alternating strategy, the clinician must first help the patient establish a sedating dose of 2 medications from different classes, such as trazodone and zolpidem, and then instruct the patient to use each for 2 to 3 consecutive nights on an alternating basis. Patients can use calendars or pillboxes to avoid confusion about which medication to take on a given night. In many cases, this approach can work indefinitely.

The following 3 case vignettes illustrate how this alternating medication strategy can work.

CASE 1

Mr. B, age 58, is a married salesman whose territory includes 3 states. He drives from client to client from Monday through Thursday each week, staying overnight in hotels. He is comfortable talking to clients, has a close and supportive relationship with his wife, and enjoys socializing with friends. Mr. B has a high level of trait anxiety and perfectionism and is proud of his sales record throughout his career, but this leads to insomnia during his nights on the road, and often on Sunday night as he starts anticipating the week ahead. Mr. B denies having a depressed mood or cognitive problems. When on vacation with his wife he has no trouble sleeping. He has no psychiatric family history or any substantial medical problems. He simply wishes that he could sleep on work nights.

We set up an alternating medication approach. Mr. B takes trazodone 100 mg on the first night and 150 mg on the second and third nights. He then takes triazolam 0.25 mg for 2 nights; previously, he had found that zolpidem did not work as well for maintaining sleep. He can sleep adequately for the 2 weekend nights, then restarts the alternating pattern. Mr. B has done well with this regimen for >10 years.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. C, age 60, is widowed and has a successful career as a corporate attorney. She has been anxious since early childhood and has had trouble falling asleep for much of her life. Once she falls asleep on her sofa—often between 1 and 2 am—Ms. C can sleep soundly for 7 to 8 hours, but early morning work meetings require her to set an alarm for 6 am daily. Ms. C feels irritable and anxious on awakening but arrives at her office by 7:30 am, where she maintains a full schedule, with frequent 12-hour workdays. Ms. C did not experience significant insomnia or hot flashes with menopause at age 52 and does not use hormone replacement therapy.

Ms. C denies having depression, but experienced appropriate grief related to her husband’s illness and death from metastatic cancer 3 years ago. At the time, her internist prescribed escitalopram and zolpidem; escitalopram caused greater agitation and distress, so she stopped it after 10 days. Zolpidem 10 mg/d allowed her to sleep but she worried about taking it because her mother had long-standing sedative dependence. Ms. C lives alone, but her adult children live nearby, and she has a strong support system that includes colleagues at her firm, friends at her book club, and a support group for partners of cancer patients.

Ms. C tries trazodone, starting with 50 mg, but reports feeling agitated rather than sleepy and has cognitive fogginess in the morning. She is switched to quetiapine 50 mg, which she tolerates well and allows her to sleep soundly. To avoid developing tachyphylaxis with quetiapine, she takes eszopiclone 3 mg for 2 nights, alternating with quetiapine for 3 nights. This strategy allows her to reliably fall asleep by 11 pm, wake up at 6 am, and feel rested throughout the day.

CASE 3

Ms. D, age 55, is married with a long-standing diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, and depression so severe she is unable to work as a preschool teacher. She notes that past clinicians have prescribed a wide array of antidepressants and benzodiazepines but she remains anxious, agitated, and unable to sleep. She worries constantly about running out of benzodiazepines, which are “the only medication that helps me.” At the time of evaluation, her medications are venlafaxine ER 150 mg/d, lorazepam 1 mg 3 times daily and 2 mg at bedtime, and buspirone 15 mg 3 times daily, which she admits to not taking. She is overweight and does not exercise. She spends her days snacking and watching television. She can’t settle down enough to read and feels overwhelmed most of the time. Her adult children won’t allow her to babysit their young children because she dozes during the day.

Ms. D has a strong family history of psychiatric illness, including a father with bipolar I disorder and alcohol use disorder and a sister with schizoaffective disorder. Ms. D has never felt overtly manic, but has spent most of her life feeling depressed, anxious, and hopeless, and at times she has wished she was dead. She has had poor responses to many antidepressants, with transient euphoria followed by more anxiety.

Continue to: Rather than major depressive disorder...

Rather than major depressive disorder or GAD, Ms. D’s symptoms better meet the criteria for bipolar II disorder. She agrees to a slow taper of venlafaxine and a slow increase of divalproex, starting with 125 mg each evening. While taking venlafaxine 75 mg/d and divalproex 375 mg/d, she experiences distinct improvement in anxiety and agitation, which further improve after venlafaxine is stopped and divalproex is increased to 750 mg in the evening. She finds that she forgets daytime doses of lorazepam but depends on it to fall asleep. While taking quetiapine 50 mg and lorazepam 1 mg at bedtime, Ms. D reports sleeping soundly and feeling alert in the morning. Over several weeks, she tapers lorazepam slowly by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. She finds she needs a higher dose of quetiapine to stay asleep, eventually requiring 400 mg each night. Ms. D says overall she feels better but is distressed because she has gained 25 lbs since starting divalproex and quetiapine.

To avoid further increases in quetiapine and maintain its sedating effect, Ms. D is switched to an alternating schedule of clonazepam 1.5 mg for 2 nights and quetiapine 300 mg for 3 nights. She agrees to begin exercising by walking in her neighborhood daily, and gradually increases this to 1 hour per day. After starting to exercise regularly, she finds she is oversedated by quetiapine at night, so she is gradually decreased to a dose of 150 mg, while still alternating with clonazepam 1.5 mg. Ms. D loses most of the weight she had gained and begins volunteering as a reading coach in the elementary school in her neighborhood.

Bottom Line

Patients with chronic insomnia can often maintain adequate sedation without developing tolerance to benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis with nonsedating agents by using 2 sleep medications that have different mechanisms of action on an alternating schedule.

Related Resources

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2): 307-349. doi:10.5664/jcsm.6470
• Muppavarapu K, Muthukanagaraj M, Saeed SA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia: a review of 8 studies. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):40-46. doi:10.12788/cp.0040

Drug Brand Names

Alprazolam • Xanax
Armodafinil • Nuvigil
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Diazepam • Valium
Divalproex • Depakote
Doxepin • Sinequan
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Modafinil • Provigil
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Temazepam • Restoril
Trazodone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien

Patients with chronic insomnia that does not improve with nonpharmacologic techniques often develop tolerance to sedative medications (benzodiazepines) prescribed for nightly use. When nonbenzodiazepine medications are used, tachyphylaxis can develop and these medications no longer initiate or maintain sleep. Strategies that alternate between these 2 types of agents are simple to follow and may allow patients to maintain sensitivity to both types of medications. In this article, I review the types, causes, evaluation, and treatment of insomnia; describe an alternating medication strategy to help patients avoid developing tolerance/tachyphylaxis; and present 3 fictional case vignettes to illustrate this approach.

A common, troubling condition

Insomnia is a common problem among psychiatric patients. Approximately 30% to 50% of adults experience occasional, short-term (<3 months) insomnia, and 5% to 10% experience chronic (≥3 months) insomnia,¹ with associated negative impacts on health and quality of life. Insomnia is sometimes primary and may have a hereditary component, but more often is associated with medical, neurologic, or psychiatric disorders.

Patterns of insomnia include difficulty falling asleep (initial or sleep-onset insomnia), remaining asleep (middle or sleep-maintenance insomnia), or falling back asleep after early awakening (late or sleep-offset insomnia). Sleep-onset insomnia correlates with high levels of anxiety and worrying, but once asleep, patients usually stay asleep. Sleep-maintenance problems involve multiple awakenings after falling asleep and taking hours to fall back to sleep. These patients experience inadequate sleep when they must wake up early for school or work. Early-awakening patients report feeling wide awake by 4 to 5 am and being unable to get back to sleep.

Caffeine is an important consideration for patients with sleep difficulties. Its use is widespread in much of the world, whether ingested as coffee, tea, in soft drinks, or in “energy” drinks that may contain as much as 200 mg of caffeine (twice the amount in a typical cup of brewed coffee). Caffeine may also be ingested as an ingredient of medications for headache or migraine. While some individuals maintain that they can fall asleep easily after drinking caffeinated coffee, many may not recognize the amount of caffeine they consume and its negative impact on sleep.² Author Michael Pollan stopped use of all caffeine and reported on the surprising positive effect on his sleep.³

Patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders are likely to experience insomnia intermittently or chronically, and insomnia predisposes some individuals to develop mood and anxiety symptoms.⁴ Patients with insomnia often experience anxiety focused on a fear of not getting adequate sleep, which creates a vicious cycle in which hyperarousal associated with fear of not sleeping complicates other causes of insomnia. A patient’s chronotype (preference for the time of day in which they carry out activities vs sleeping) also may play a role in sleep difficulties (Box⁵).

Box

Certain medications may contribute to insomnia, particularly stimulants. It is important to understand and explain to patients the time frame during which immediate-release or extended-release (ER) stimulants are active, which varies in individuals depending on liver enzyme activity. Other commonly used psychotropic medications—including bupropion, modafinil, armodafinil, atomoxetine, amphetamine salts, and methylphenidate—may interfere with sleep if used later in the day.⁶

Patients typically do not mention their use of alcohol and/or marijuana unless asked. Those who are binge drinkers or alcohol-dependent may expect alcohol to help them fall asleep, but usually find their sleep is disrupted and difficult to maintain. Patients may use marijuana to help them sleep, particularly marijuana high in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). While it may help with sleep initiation, THC can disrupt sleep maintenance. Cannabidiol does not have intrinsic sedating effects and may even interfere with sleep.^7,8

Continue to: Women may be more likely...

Women may be more likely than men to experience insomnia.⁹ The onset of menopause can bring hot flashes that interfere with sleep.

Women with a history of mood disorders are more likely to have a history of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, postpartum depression, and unusual responses to oral contraceptives.¹⁰ These women are more likely to report problems with mood, energy, and sleep at perimenopause. Treatment with estrogen replacement may be an option for women without risk factors, such as clotting disorders, smoking history, or a personal or family history of breast or uterine cancer. For many who are not candidates for or who refuse estrogen replacement, use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor at low doses may help with vasomotor symptoms but not with insomnia.

Insomnia symptoms typically increase with age.¹¹ When sleep is adequate early in life but becomes a problem in midlife, an individual’s eating habits, obesity, and lack of exercise may be contributing factors. The typical American diet includes highly refined carbohydrates with excess salt; such foods are often readily available to the exclusion of healthy options. Overweight and obese patients may insist they eat a healthy diet with 3 meals per day, but a careful history often uncovers nighttime binge eating. Nighttime binge eating is rarely reported. This not only maintains obesity, but also interferes with sleep, since patients stay up late to avoid discovery by family members.¹² This lack of sleep can lead to an endless loop because insufficient sleep is a risk factor for obesity.¹³

Evaluating sleep difficulties

New patient evaluations should include a careful history beginning with childhood, including personal early childhood history and family psychiatric history. Patients often report the onset of sleep difficulty and anxiety during childhood, which should raise further questions about aspects of mood regulation from early life such as concentration, energy, motivation, appetite, and academic performance. While many children and adolescents are diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder due to concentration problems that cause difficulties at school, be aware this might be part of a syndrome related to mood regulation.¹⁴ Unexpected responses to an SSRI—such as agitation, euphoria, or an immediate response with the first dose—should also raise suspicion of a mood disorder. Once the underlying mood disorder is stabilized, many patients report improved sleep.¹⁵

If a patient reports having difficulty falling and remaining asleep but is not sure if there is a pattern, keeping a sleep diary can help. Further questioning may uncover the cause. Does the patient have spontaneous jerks of lower extremities (restless leg syndrome) that interfere with falling asleep or wake them up? Have they noticed problems with dreams/nightmares that wake them, which could be associated with posttraumatic stress, anxiety, or depression? Have they been told by a partner that they act out dreams or are seemingly awake but not responsive, which could point to REM sleep behavior disorder or early Parkinson’s disease? Referral to a sleep laboratory and a neurologist can help establish the correct diagnosis and point to appropriate treatment.^16-18

Treatment options

Several cognitive-behavioral techniques, including cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), yogic breathing, progressive relaxation, mindfulness meditation, and sleep hygiene techniques may help considerably,^19,20 but insomnia often remains difficult to treat. Pharmacotherapy is not necessarily more effective than nonpharmacologic approaches. Both options require the patient to take initiative to either find nonpharmacologic approaches or discuss the problem with a physician and agree to take medication.²¹ A trial comparing CBT-I to sedatives or the combination of CBT-I plus sedatives found higher rates of sleep with CBT-I for 3 months, after which improvement fluctuated; the combination showed sustained improvement for the entire 6-month trial.²² CBT-I has also been shown to be as effective with patients who do not have psychiatric illness as for those who are depressed, anxious, or stressed.²³ However, behavioral techniques that require regular practice may be difficult for individuals to maintain, particularly when they are depressed or anxious.

Continue to: Clinicians should understand...

Clinicians should understand the distinctions among the various types of pharmacotherapy for insomnia. Sedative-hypnotics include medications with varying half-lives and metabolic pathways. Short-acting benzodiazepines such as triazolam or alprazolam and the “z-drugs” zolpidem or zaleplon may help initiate sleep in patients with sleep-onset insomnia. Longer-acting benzodiazepines such as diazepam, clonazepam, or temazepam and the z-drug eszopiclone may also help with sleep maintenance.²³ Based on my clinical experience, individual patients may respond better to 1 type of medication over another, or even to different agents within the same class of sedative-hypnotics.

Some clinicians prescribe nonbenzodiazepine medications for sleep, such as doxepin (which is FDA-approved for treating insomnia) or off-label trazodone, mirtazapine, or quetiapine. Their antihistaminic properties confer sedating effects. Virtually all over-the-counter (OTC) medications for insomnia are antihistaminic. These OTC medications are not designed to treat insomnia, and the optimal dosage to maintain sleep without daytime sedation must be determined by trial and error. Sedating nonbenzodiazepine medications may be slowly absorbed if taken at bedtime (depending on whether they are taken with or without food) and cause daytime sedation and cognitive slowness in patients with sleep-onset and maintenance insomnia who must wake up early. Starting trazodone at 50 to 75 mg may cause slow metabolizers to wake up with considerable sedation, while fast metabolizers might never feel soundly asleep.²⁴

Patients with mood and anxiety disorders that complicate insomnia are often prescribed second-generation antipsychotics such as quetiapine, lurasidone, or olanzapine, which are sedating as well as mood-stabilizing. These approaches require careful attention to titrating doses and timing their use.

Problems with pharmacotherapy

When either benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine medications are used on a long-standing, nightly basis, they often stop working well. It is not unusual that after days to weeks of taking a benzodiazepine, patients find they no longer stay asleep but can’t fall asleep if they don’t take them. Once tolerance develops, the individual experiences pharmacologic withdrawal with an inability to fall asleep or stay asleep. The medication becomes necessary but ineffective, and many patients increase their use to higher doses to fall asleep, and sometimes in early morning to maintain sleep. This leads to negative effects on cognition, coordination/balance, and mood during the day, especially in older patients.

Nonbenzodiazepine sedating medications do not lead to pharmacologic tolerance but do lead to tachyphylaxis as the CNS attempts to downregulate sedation to keep the organism safe. For some patients, this happens quickly, within a matter of days.²⁵ Others increase doses to stay asleep. For example, a patient with a starting dose of trazodone 75 mg/d might increase the dosage to 300 mg/d. While trazodone is approved in doses of 300 to 600 mg as an antidepressant, it is preferable to keep doses lower when used only for sedation.

Continue to: An alternating medication strategy

Alternating between medications from different classes can help patients avoid developing tolerance with benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis as occurs with antihistaminic medications. It can be effective for patients with primary insomnia as well as for those whose sleep problems are associated with mood or anxiety disorders. Patients typically maintain sensitivity to any form of pharmacologic sedation for several nights without loss of effect but need to take a break to maintain the sedation effect. For example, in 1 case study, a 30-year-old female who rapidly developed tachyphylaxis to the sedative action of mirtazapine experienced a return of the medication’s sedative effects after taking a 3-day break.²⁵

To initiate an alternating strategy, the clinician must first help the patient establish a sedating dose of 2 medications from different classes, such as trazodone and zolpidem, and then instruct the patient to use each for 2 to 3 consecutive nights on an alternating basis. Patients can use calendars or pillboxes to avoid confusion about which medication to take on a given night. In many cases, this approach can work indefinitely.

The following 3 case vignettes illustrate how this alternating medication strategy can work.

CASE 1

Mr. B, age 58, is a married salesman whose territory includes 3 states. He drives from client to client from Monday through Thursday each week, staying overnight in hotels. He is comfortable talking to clients, has a close and supportive relationship with his wife, and enjoys socializing with friends. Mr. B has a high level of trait anxiety and perfectionism and is proud of his sales record throughout his career, but this leads to insomnia during his nights on the road, and often on Sunday night as he starts anticipating the week ahead. Mr. B denies having a depressed mood or cognitive problems. When on vacation with his wife he has no trouble sleeping. He has no psychiatric family history or any substantial medical problems. He simply wishes that he could sleep on work nights.

We set up an alternating medication approach. Mr. B takes trazodone 100 mg on the first night and 150 mg on the second and third nights. He then takes triazolam 0.25 mg for 2 nights; previously, he had found that zolpidem did not work as well for maintaining sleep. He can sleep adequately for the 2 weekend nights, then restarts the alternating pattern. Mr. B has done well with this regimen for >10 years.

Continue to: CASE 2

Ms. C, age 60, is widowed and has a successful career as a corporate attorney. She has been anxious since early childhood and has had trouble falling asleep for much of her life. Once she falls asleep on her sofa—often between 1 and 2 am—Ms. C can sleep soundly for 7 to 8 hours, but early morning work meetings require her to set an alarm for 6 am daily. Ms. C feels irritable and anxious on awakening but arrives at her office by 7:30 am, where she maintains a full schedule, with frequent 12-hour workdays. Ms. C did not experience significant insomnia or hot flashes with menopause at age 52 and does not use hormone replacement therapy.

Ms. C denies having depression, but experienced appropriate grief related to her husband’s illness and death from metastatic cancer 3 years ago. At the time, her internist prescribed escitalopram and zolpidem; escitalopram caused greater agitation and distress, so she stopped it after 10 days. Zolpidem 10 mg/d allowed her to sleep but she worried about taking it because her mother had long-standing sedative dependence. Ms. C lives alone, but her adult children live nearby, and she has a strong support system that includes colleagues at her firm, friends at her book club, and a support group for partners of cancer patients.

Ms. C tries trazodone, starting with 50 mg, but reports feeling agitated rather than sleepy and has cognitive fogginess in the morning. She is switched to quetiapine 50 mg, which she tolerates well and allows her to sleep soundly. To avoid developing tachyphylaxis with quetiapine, she takes eszopiclone 3 mg for 2 nights, alternating with quetiapine for 3 nights. This strategy allows her to reliably fall asleep by 11 pm, wake up at 6 am, and feel rested throughout the day.

CASE 3

Ms. D, age 55, is married with a long-standing diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, and depression so severe she is unable to work as a preschool teacher. She notes that past clinicians have prescribed a wide array of antidepressants and benzodiazepines but she remains anxious, agitated, and unable to sleep. She worries constantly about running out of benzodiazepines, which are “the only medication that helps me.” At the time of evaluation, her medications are venlafaxine ER 150 mg/d, lorazepam 1 mg 3 times daily and 2 mg at bedtime, and buspirone 15 mg 3 times daily, which she admits to not taking. She is overweight and does not exercise. She spends her days snacking and watching television. She can’t settle down enough to read and feels overwhelmed most of the time. Her adult children won’t allow her to babysit their young children because she dozes during the day.

Ms. D has a strong family history of psychiatric illness, including a father with bipolar I disorder and alcohol use disorder and a sister with schizoaffective disorder. Ms. D has never felt overtly manic, but has spent most of her life feeling depressed, anxious, and hopeless, and at times she has wished she was dead. She has had poor responses to many antidepressants, with transient euphoria followed by more anxiety.

Continue to: Rather than major depressive disorder...

Rather than major depressive disorder or GAD, Ms. D’s symptoms better meet the criteria for bipolar II disorder. She agrees to a slow taper of venlafaxine and a slow increase of divalproex, starting with 125 mg each evening. While taking venlafaxine 75 mg/d and divalproex 375 mg/d, she experiences distinct improvement in anxiety and agitation, which further improve after venlafaxine is stopped and divalproex is increased to 750 mg in the evening. She finds that she forgets daytime doses of lorazepam but depends on it to fall asleep. While taking quetiapine 50 mg and lorazepam 1 mg at bedtime, Ms. D reports sleeping soundly and feeling alert in the morning. Over several weeks, she tapers lorazepam slowly by 0.5 mg every 2 weeks. She finds she needs a higher dose of quetiapine to stay asleep, eventually requiring 400 mg each night. Ms. D says overall she feels better but is distressed because she has gained 25 lbs since starting divalproex and quetiapine.

To avoid further increases in quetiapine and maintain its sedating effect, Ms. D is switched to an alternating schedule of clonazepam 1.5 mg for 2 nights and quetiapine 300 mg for 3 nights. She agrees to begin exercising by walking in her neighborhood daily, and gradually increases this to 1 hour per day. After starting to exercise regularly, she finds she is oversedated by quetiapine at night, so she is gradually decreased to a dose of 150 mg, while still alternating with clonazepam 1.5 mg. Ms. D loses most of the weight she had gained and begins volunteering as a reading coach in the elementary school in her neighborhood.

Bottom Line

Patients with chronic insomnia can often maintain adequate sedation without developing tolerance to benzodiazepines or tachyphylaxis with nonsedating agents by using 2 sleep medications that have different mechanisms of action on an alternating schedule.

Related Resources

• Sateia MJ, Buysse DJ, Krystal AD, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia in adults: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(2): 307-349. doi:10.5664/jcsm.6470
• Muppavarapu K, Muthukanagaraj M, Saeed SA. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia: a review of 8 studies. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):40-46. doi:10.12788/cp.0040

Drug Brand Names

Alprazolam • Xanax
Armodafinil • Nuvigil
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Diazepam • Valium
Divalproex • Depakote
Doxepin • Sinequan
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Lorazepam • Ativan
Lurasidone • Latuda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Modafinil • Provigil
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Temazepam • Restoril
Trazodone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Venlafaxine • Effexor
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

Good riddance COVID-19 pandemic? Alas, that’s wishful thinking.

Many assume the pandemic is in our rearview mirror, but its biological, psychological, and social impacts continue to unfold. Its repercussions are etched into our brain, mind, emotions, behaviors, cognition, and outlook on life. Welcome to Pandemic 2.0.

Think of people who survive a heart attack. They experience multiple changes. Their initial ephemeral thrill of beating death is rapidly tempered with anxiety and worry about a future myocardial infarction and health issues in general. They become more risk-averse and more prone to dysphoria, irritability, and impatience. These individuals adopt a healthy lifestyle (diet and exercise), which they had neglected before. They develop more disciplined personality traits, feel a greater appreciation for being alive, and develop a closer affinity to family and friends. Simple things they had overlooked become more meaningful. They reevaluate their life goals, including career vs personal fulfilment. Some may overindulge in pleasurable activities in case their heart fails again. Some of those changes may be abrupt or transient, while others may become permanent features of their lives. And some may seek psychotherapy, which they may never have considered before.

The pandemic is the equivalent of a “societal cardiac arrest.” Its immediate impact was devastating. Bustling cities suddenly became ghost towns. Schools were closed, and children were locked at home with their parents, who were laid off. Businesses shut down; the economy tanked. Anxiety about being infected and dying skyrocketed, triggering a universal acute stress reaction that worsened the mental health of the population, but especially of the millions with preexisting psychiatric disorders. Routine medical and dental care stopped. Television and social media disseminated alarming updates about massive intensive care unit admissions and morgues overflowing with corpses of COVID-19 victims. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was brewing across the nation as everyone faced this life-threatening pandemic.

The warp-speed development of vaccines for COVID-19 was equivalent to a defibrillator for the societal asystole, but the turmoil continued among the frazzled population. Some refused the vaccine due to conspiracy theories about their dangerous adverse effects. Employees in the private sector, state and federal government, and even the military who refused the mandatory vaccination lost their jobs. Controversy about shuttering schools and depriving children of face-to-face learning and socializing prompted some states to keep schools open, in contrast to most other states. Anger escalated about wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding gatherings such as at restaurants or houses of worship. Cynicism and mistrust sprouted about the competence and reliability of health “experts” due to some conflicting signals, precluding wide adherence to medical advice.

The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Those were the immediate repercussions of the pandemic. But what are its lingering effects? The sequelae extend across 1) the health care system; 2) the mental and emotional wellness of the population; 3) education; 4) work culture; 5) the economy; 6) societal operations; 7) technological and digital transformations; 8) mistrust in various societal institutions; 9) lack of confidence in medical information; and 10) preparedness for another pandemic due to a new strain.

As all psychiatrists know, the demand for mental health services continues to surge well after the pandemic has subsided, straining access to outpatient and inpatient care. Multiple lines of evidence confirm a deterioration in the long-term psychological well-being of children and adolescents because of lockdowns, social isolation, and anxiety about their own health and the health of their loved ones, leading to a serious rise in depression and suicidal behavior.^1-3

Contunue to: Adults who survived pandemic...

Adults who survived the pandemic experienced grief during 2 very stressful years, with no peace of mind or “normal living.” Many began to contemplate the meaning of life and reevaluate the future, waxing more philosophical and embarking on “personal archeology.” The fragility of life suddenly became a ubiquitous epiphany that changed people’s habits. Working from home, which was necessary during the pandemic, became a preferred option for many, and home became an emotional refuge, not just a physical, brick-and-mortar refuge. Millions decided to quit working altogether (the “great resignation”).

Sexual activity declined precipitously during the pandemic for singles (French kissing became “the kiss of death”) but intercourse increased among couples, eventuating in a significant rise in births after the pandemic (a baby boomlet). Sexual interest among college students declined after the pandemic, which may be either due to fear of getting infected or a sublimation of libido to invest the energy in other, less risky activities.

At the societal level, the pandemic’s sequelae included a major shift to virtual communications, not just in health care (telepsychiatry and telemedicine) but also in business. Technology saved the day during the nadir of the pandemic by enabling psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat their patients remotely. This was not technologically feasible during the past century’s influenza pandemics (1918, 1957, and 1968).

The intellectual and social development of an entire generation of children was stunted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequences will continue to emerge in the years to come and may have ripple effects on this generation’s functioning. This may have particularly affected children of lower socioeconomic status, whose families cannot afford private schools and who are in dire need of good education to put them on the path of upward mobility.

As for adults who did not get infected by COVID-19, they suffered in 2 ways. First, they experienced a certain degree of brain atrophy, which is known to occur in chronic stress. This is attributed to persistent hypercortisolemia, which is toxic to the hippocampus. PTSD is well known to be associated with hippocampal atrophy.⁴ Additionally, a significant proportion of adults who contracted the COVID-19 virus and “recovered” were subsequently diagnosed with “long COVID,” with multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms, including psychosis, mania, depression, and panic attacks, as well as memory impairment and loss of the senses of smell and taste. For these individuals, the pandemic has not subsided; they will carry its neuropsychiatric scars for a long time.

Continue to: Economically, the pandemic...

Economically, the pandemic caused a horrific economic setback in its acute phase, which prompted the government to spend trillions to support the unemployed as well as blighted businesses. The economic sequalae of deficit spending of unprecedented proportions due to the pandemic triggered painful inflation that is ongoing. Interestingly, the numerical terms “billion” and “trillion” lost their loftiness as very huge numbers. Few people realize that counting to a billion (at one number per second) would take 31.7 years, while counting to a trillion would take 31,700 years! The inflationary impact of spending $6 trillion (which would take almost 200,000 years to count) becomes mathematically jarring. And despite the heroic measures to support the economy, some business perished, although others were created, changing the human architecture of the economy.

The pandemic drastically suppressed the “hunting and gathering” instinct of humans and demolished the fabled concept of work ethic. The “great resignation,” coupled with a desire to work from home on a mass scale, led to a glut of vacant office space in many large cities, lowering the value of commercial real estate. Following the pandemic, there was an uptick in moving away from urban areas, reflecting a creative destruction and reversal of a decades-long trend to gravitate to cities to work or live.

There was also political fallout from the pandemic. Staying at home is conducive to overdosing on television and social media, leading to an intensification and ossification of political hyperpartisanship and the further displacement of religious beliefs by passionately entrenched political beliefs. This continues to have seismic effects on political stability and harmony in our country. The pandemic may have instigated new models of national voting, which triggered further political friction.

Other examples of the pandemic’s aftereffects include a shortage of lifeguards and truck drivers, replacing the traditional handshake with a first bump, and increased spending on pleasurable activities (reminiscent of the Roaring 20s following the 1918 influenza pandemic), which may reflect an instinct to “live it up” before another deadly pandemic occurs.

Ironically, as I was finishing writing this article in early September 2023, the government announced that COVID-19 cases were again rising and a new vaccine was available for the new viral “strain.”

Here we go again: as the French saying goes: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention, impulsivity, and/or hyperactivity that causes functional impairment.¹ ADHD begins in childhood, continues into adulthood, and has negative consequences in many facets of adult patients’ lives, including their careers, daily functioning, and interpersonal relationships.² According to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence’s recommendations, both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are advised for patients with ADHD.³ Although various pharmacotherapies are advised as first-line treatments for ADHD, they are frequently linked to unfavorable adverse effects, partial responses, chronic residual symptoms, high dropout rates, and issues with addiction.⁴ As a result, there is a need for evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies.

In a systematic review, Nimmo-Smith et al⁵ found that certain nonpharmacologic treatments can be effective in helping patients with ADHD manage their illness. In clinical and cognitive assessments of ADHD, a recent meta-analysis found that noninvasive brain stimulation had a small but significant effect.⁶ Some evidence suggests that in addition to noninvasive brain stimulation, other nonpharmacologic interventions, including psychoeducation (PE), mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and chronotherapy, can be effective as an adjunct treatment to pharmacotherapy, and possibly as monotherapy.

Part 1 of this 2-part article reviewed 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic interventions for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years.⁷ Part 2 analyzes 6 RCTs of nonpharmacologic treatments for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years (Table^8-13).

1. Leffa DT, Grevet EH, Bau CHD, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation vs sham for the treatment of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the TUNED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(9):847-856. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.2055

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses noninvasive, low-intensity electrical current on the scalp to affect underlying cortical activity.¹⁴ This form of neurostimulation offers an alternative treatment option for when medications fail or are not tolerated, and can be used at home without the direct involvement of a clinician.¹⁴ tDCS as a treatment for ADHD has been increasingly researched, though many studies have been limited by short treatment periods and varied methodological approaches. In a meta-analysis, Westwood et al⁶ found a trend toward improvement on the function of processing speed but not on attention. Leffa et al⁸ examined the efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of home-based tDCS in adult patients with ADHD, specifically looking at reduction in inattention symptoms.

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluated 64 participants age 18 to 60 from a single center in Brazil who met DSM-5 criteria for combined or primarily inattentive ADHD.
• Inclusion criteria included an inattention score ≥21 on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS). This scale assesses both inattentive symptoms (CASRS-I) and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (CASRS-HI). Participants were not being treated with stimulants or agreed to undergo a 30-day washout of stimulants prior to the study.
• Exclusion criteria included current moderate to severe depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI] score >21), current moderate to severe anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI] score ≥21), diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) with either a manic or depressive episode in the year prior to study, diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), positive screen for substance use, unstable medical condition resulting in poor functionality, pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant within 3 months of the study, not able to use home-based equipment, history of neurosurgery, presence of ferromagnetic metal in the head or presence of implanted medical devices in head/neck region, or history of epilepsy with reported seizures in the year prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to self-administer real or sham tDCS; the devices looked the same. Participants underwent daily 30-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct constant current for a total of 28 sessions. Sham treatment involved a 30-second ramp-up to 2-mA and a 30-second ramp-down sensation at the beginning, middle, and end of each respective session.
• The primary outcome was a change in symptoms of inattention per CASRS-I. Secondary outcomes were scores on the CASRS-HI, BDI, BAI, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions-Adult (BRIEF-A), which evaluates executive function.

Outcomes

• A total of 53 participants used stimulant medications prior to the study and 8 required a washout. The average age was 38.3, and 53% of participants were male.
• For the 55 participants who completed 4 weeks of treatment, the mean number of sessions was 25.2 in the tDCS group and 24.8 in the sham group.
• At the end of Week 4, there was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction in CASRS-I scores in the tDCS group compared to the sham group (18.88 vs 23.63 on final CASRS-I scores; P < .001).
• There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions/limitations

• This study showed the benefits of 4 weeks of home-based tDCS for managing inattentive symptoms in adults with ADHD. The authors noted that extended treatment of tDCS may incur greater benefit, as this study used a longer treatment course compared to others that have used a shorter duration of treatment (ie, days instead of weeks). Additionally, this study placed the anodal electrode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) vs over the left DLPFC, because there may be a decrease in activation in the right DLPFC in adults with ADHD undergoing attention tasks.¹⁵
• This study also showed that home-based tDCS can be an easier and more accessible way for patients to receive treatment, as opposed to needing to visit a health care facility.
• Limitations: The dropout rate (although only 2 of 7 participants who dropped out of the active group withdrew due to adverse events), lack of remote monitoring of patients, and restrictive inclusion criteria limit the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, 3 patients in the tDCS group and 7 in the sham group were taking psychotropic medications for anxiety or depression.

Continue to: #2

Previous research has shown that using mindfulness-based approaches can improve ADHD symptoms.^16,17 Hoxhaj et al⁹ looked at the effectiveness of mindfulness awareness practices (MAP) for alleviating ADHD symptoms.

Study design

• This RCT enrolled 81 adults from a German medical center who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, were not taking any ADHD medications, and had not undergone any psychotherapeutic treatments in the last 3 months. Participants were randomized to receive MAP (n = 41) or PE (n = 40).
• Exclusion criteria included having a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia, BD I, active substance dependence, ASD, suicidality, self-injurious behavior, or neurologic disorders.
• The MAP group underwent 8 weekly 2.5-hour sessions, plus homework involving meditation and other exercises. The PE group was given information regarding ADHD and management options, including organization and stress management skills.
• Patients were assessed 2 weeks before treatment (T1), at the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• The primary outcome was the change in the blind-observer rated Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) inattention/memory scales from T1 to T2.
• Secondary outcomes included the other CAARS subscales, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the BDI, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

Outcomes

• Baseline demographics did not differ between groups other than the MAP group having a significantly higher IQ than the PE group. However, this difference resolved after the final sample was analyzed, as there were 2 dropouts and 7 participants lost to follow-up in the MAP group and 4 dropouts and 4 participants lost to follow-up in the PE group.
• There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary outcome of observer-rated CAARS inattention/memory subscale scores, or other ADHD symptoms per the CAARS.
• However, there was a significant difference within each group on all ADHD subscales of the observer-rated CAARS at T2. Persistent, significant differences were noted for the observer-rated CAARS subscales of self-concept and DSM-IV Inattentive Symptoms, and all CAARS self-report scales to T3.
• Compared to the PE group, there was a significantly larger improvement in the MAP group on scores of the mindfulness parameters of observation and nonreactivity to inner experience.
• There were significant improvements regarding depression per the BDI and global severity per the BSI in both treatment groups, with no differences between the groups.
• At T3, in the MAP group, 3 patients received methylphenidate, 1 received atomoxetine, and 1 received antidepressant medication. In the PE group, 2 patients took methylphenidate, and 2 participants took antidepressants.
• There was a significant difference regarding sex and response, with men experiencing less overall improvement than women.

Conclusions/limitations

• MAP was not superior to PE in terms of changes on CAARS scores, although within each group, both therapies showed improvement over time.
• While there may be gender-specific differences in processing information and coping strategies, future research should examine the differences between men and women with different therapeutic approaches.
• Limitations: This study did not employ a true placebo but instead had 2 active arms. Generalizability is limited due to a lack of certain comorbidities and use of medications.

Continue to: #3

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a form of psychotherapy that combines mindfulness with the principles of CBT. Hepark et al¹⁸ found benefits of MBCT for reducing ADHD symptoms. In a larger, multicenter, single-blind RCT, Janssen et al¹⁰ reviewed the efficacy of MBCT compared to treatment as usual (TAU).

Study design

• A total of 120 participants age ≥18 who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD were recruited from Dutch clinics and advertisements and randomized to receive MBCT plus TAU (n = 60) or TAU alone (n = 60). There were no significant demographic differences between groups at baseline.
• Exclusion criteria included active depression with psychosis or suicidality, active manic episode, tic disorder with vocal tics, ASD, learning or other cognitive impairments, borderline or antisocial personality disorder, substance dependence, or previous participation in MBCT or other mindfulness-based interventions. Participants also had to be able to complete the questionnaires in Dutch.
• Blinded evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), at the completion of therapy (T1), 3 months after the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• MBCT included 8 weekly, 2.5-hour sessions and a 6-hour silent session between the sixth and seventh sessions. Patients participated in various meditation techniques with the addition of PE, CBT, and group discussions. They were also instructed to practice guided exercises 6 days/week, for approximately 30 minutes/day.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD symptoms as assessed by the investigator-rated CAARS (CAARS-INV) at T1.
• Secondary outcomes included change in scores on the CAARS: Screening Version (CAARS-S:SV), BRIEF-A, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-Short Form (FFMQ-SF), Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF), Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), and Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2).

Outcomes

• In the MBCT group, participants who dropped out (n = 9) were less likely to be using ADHD medication at baseline than those who completed the study.
• At T1, the MBCT plus TAU group had significantly less ADHD symptoms on CAARS-INV compared to TAU (d = 0.41, P = .004), with more participants in the MBCT plus TAU group experiencing a symptom reduction ≥30% (24% vs 7%, P = .001) and remission (P = .039).
• The MBCT plus TAU group also had a significant reduction in scores on CAARS-S:SV as well as significant improvement on self-compassion per SCS-SF, mindfulness skills per FFMQ-SF, and positive mental health per MHC-SF, but not on executive functioning per BRIEF-A or general functioning per OQ 45.2.
• Over 6-month follow-up, there continued to be significant improvement in CAARS-INV, CAARS-S:SV, mindfulness skills, self-compassion, and positive mental health in the MBCT plus TAU group compared to TAU. The difference in executive functioning (BRIEF-A) also became significant over time.

Conclusions/limitations

• MBCT plus TAU appears to be effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, both from a clinician-rated and self-reported perspective, with improvements lasting up to 6 months.
• There were also improvements in mindfulness, self-compassion, and positive mental health posttreatment in the MBCT plus TAU group, with improvement in executive functioning seen over the follow-up periods.
• Limitations: The sample was drawn solely from a Dutch population and did not assess the success of blinding.

Continue to: #4

Managing adult ADHD can include PE, but few studies have reviewed the effectiveness of formal clinical PE. PE is “systemic, didactic-psychotherapeutic interventions, which are adequate for informing patients and their relatives about the illness and its treatment, facilitating both an understanding and personally responsible handling of the illness and supporting those afflicted in coping with the disorder.”¹⁹ Selaskowski et al¹¹ investigated the feasibility of using smartphone-assisted PE (SAP) for adults diagnosed with ADHD.

Study design

• Participants were 60 adults age 18 to 65 who met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD. They were required to have a working comprehension of the German language and access to an Android-powered smartphone.
• Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, severe affective disorder, severe neurologic disorder, or initial use or dose change of ADHD medications 2 weeks prior to baseline.
• Participants were randomized to SAP (n = 30) or brochure-assisted PE (BAP) (n = 30). The demographics at baseline were mostly balanced between the groups except for substance abuse (5 in the SAP group vs 0 in the BAP group; P = .022).
• The primary outcome was severity of total ADHD symptoms, which was assessed by blinded evaluations conducted at baseline (T0) and after 8 weekly PE sessions (T1).
• Secondary outcomes included dropout rates, improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by the German BDI-II, improvement in functional impairment as measured by the Weiss Functional Impairment Scale (WFIRS), homework performed, attendance, and obtained PE knowledge.
• Both groups attended 8 weekly 1-hour PE group sessions led by 2 therapists and comprised of 10 participants.

Outcomes

• Only 43 of the 60 initial participants completed the study; 24 in the SAP group and 19 in the BAP group.
• The SAP group experienced a significant symptom improvement of 33.4% from T0 to T1 compared to the BAP group, which experienced a symptom improvement of 17.3% (P = .019).
• ADHD core symptoms considerably decreased in both groups. There was no significant difference between groups (P = .74).
• SAP dramatically improved inattention (P = .019), improved impulsivity (P = .03), and increased completed homework (P < .001), compared to the BAP group.
• There was no significant difference in correctly answered quiz questions or in BDI-II or WFIRS scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Both SAP and BAP appear to be effective methods for PE, but patients who participated in SAP showed greater improvements than those who participated in BAP.
• Limitations: This study lacked a control intervention that was substantially different from SAP and lacked follow-up. The sample was a mostly German population, participants were required to have smartphone access beforehand, and substance abuse was more common in the SAP group.

Continue to: #5

CBT has demonstrated long-term benefit for the core symptoms of ADHD, comorbid symptoms (anxiety and depression), and social functioning. For ADHD, pharmacotherapies have a bottom-up effect where they increase neurotransmitter concentration, leading to an effect in the prefrontal lobe, whereas psychotherapies affect behavior-related brain activity in the prefrontal lobes, leading to the release of neurotransmitters. Pan et al¹² compared the benefits of CBT plus medication (CBT + M) to CBT alone on core ADHD symptoms, social functioning, and comorbid symptoms.

Study design

• The sample consisted of 124 participants age >18 who had received a diagnosis of adult ADHD according to DSM-IV via Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview and were either outpatients at Peking University Sixth Hospital or participants in a previous RCT (Huang et al²⁰).
• Exclusion criteria included organic mental disorders, high suicide risk in those with major depressive disorder, acute BD episode requiring medication or severe panic disorder or psychotic disorder requiring medication, pervasive developmental disorder, previous or current involvement in other psychological therapies, IQ <90, unstable physical conditions requiring medical treatment, attending <7 CBT sessions, or having serious adverse effects from medication.
• Participants received CBT + M (n = 57) or CBT alone (n = 67); 40 (70.18%) participants in the CBT + M group received methylphenidate hydrochloride controlled-release tablets (average dose 27.45 ± 9.97 mg) and 17 (29.82%) received atomoxetine hydrochloride (average dose 46.35 ± 20.09 mg). There were no significant demographic differences between groups.
• CBT consisted of 12 weekly 2-hour sessions (8 to 12 participants in each group) that were led by 2 trained psychiatrist therapists and focused on behavioral and cognitive strategies.
• Participants in the CBT alone group were drug-naïve and those in CBT + M group were stable on medications.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) score from baseline to Week 12.
• Secondary outcomes included Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-Esteem Scale (SES), executive functioning (BRIEF-A), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief version [WHOQOL-BREF]).

Outcomes

• ADHD-RS total, impulsiveness-hyperactivity subscale, and inattention subscale scores significantly improved in both groups (P < .01). The improvements were greater in the CBT + M group compared to the CBT-only group, but the differences were not statistically significant.
• There was no significant difference between groups in remission rate (P < .689).
• There was a significant improvement in SAS, SES, and SDS scores in both groups (P < .01).
• In terms of the WHOQOL-BREF, the CBT + M group experienced improvements only in the psychological and environmental domains, while the CBT-only group significantly improved across the board. The CBT-only group experienced greater improvement in the physical domain (P < .01).
• Both groups displayed considerable improvements in the Metacognition Index and Global Executive Composite for BRIEF-A. The shift, self-monitor, initiate, working memory, plan/organize, task monitor, and material organization skills significantly improved in the CBT + M group. The only areas where the CBT group significantly improved were initiate, material organization, and working memory. No significant differences in BRIEF-A effectiveness were discovered.

Conclusions/limitations

• CBT is an effective treatment for improving core ADHD symptoms.
• This study was unable to establish that CBT alone was preferable to CBT + M, particularly in terms of core symptoms, emotional symptoms, or self-esteem.
• CBT + M could lead to a greater improvement in executive function than CBT alone.
• Limitations: This study used previous databases rather than RCTs. There was no placebo in the CBT-only group. The findings may not be generalizable because participants had high education levels and IQ. The study lacked follow-up after 12 weeks.

Continue to: #6

Most individuals with ADHD have a delayed circadian rhythm.²¹ Delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS) is diagnosed when a persistently delayed circadian rhythm is not brought on by other diseases or medications. ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm may both benefit from DSPS treatment. A 3-armed randomized clinical parallel-group trial by van Andel et al¹³ investigated the effects of chronotherapy on ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm.

Study design

• Participants were Dutch-speaking individuals age 18 to 55 who were diagnosed with ADHD and DSPS. They were randomized to receive melatonin 0.5 mg/d (n = 17), placebo (n = 17), or melatonin 0.5 mg/d plus 30 minutes of timed morning bright light therapy (BLT) (n = 15) daily for 3 weeks. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups except that the melatonin plus BLT group had higher use of oral contraceptives (P = .007).
• This study was completed in the Netherlands with participants from an outpatient adult ADHD clinic.
• Exclusion criteria included epilepsy, psychotic disorders, anxiety or depression requiring acute treatment, alcohol intake >15 units/week in women or >21 units/week in men, ADHD medications, medications affecting sleep, use of drugs, mental retardation, amnestic disorder, dementia, cognitive dysfunction, crossed >2 time zones in the 2 weeks prior to the study, shift work within the previous month, having children disturbing sleep, glaucoma, retinopathy, having BLT within the previous month, pregnancy, lactation, or trying to conceive.
• The study consisted of 3-armed placebo-controlled parallel groups in which 2 were double-blind (melatonin group and placebo group).
• During the first week of treatment, medication was taken 3 hours before dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO) and later advanced to 4 and 5 hours in Week 2 and Week 3, respectively. BLT was used at 20 cm from the eyes for 30 minutes every morning between 7 am and 8 am.
• The primary outcome was DLMO in which radioimmunoassay was used to determine melatonin concentrations. DLMO was used as a marker for internal circadian rhythm.
• The secondary outcome was ADHD symptoms using the Dutch version of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV.
• Evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), the conclusion of treatment (T1), and 2 weeks after the end of treatment (T2).

Outcomes

• Out of 51 participants, 2 dropped out of the melatonin plus BLT group before baseline, and 3 dropped out of the placebo group before T1.
• At baseline, the average DLMO was 11:43 pm ± 1 hour and 46 minutes, with 77% of participants experiencing DLMO after 11 pm. Melatonin advanced DLMO by 1 hour and 28 minutes (P = .001) and melatonin plus BLT had an advance of 1 hour and 58 minutes (P < .001). DLMO was unaffected by placebo.
• The melatonin group experienced a 14% reduction in ADHD symptoms (P = .038); the placebo and melatonin plus BLT groups did not experience a reduction.
• DLMO and ADHD symptoms returned to baseline 2 weeks after therapy ended.

Conclusions/limitations

• In patients with DSPS and ADHD, low-dose melatonin can improve internal circadian rhythm and decrease ADHD symptoms.
• Melatonin plus BLT was not effective in improving ADHD symptoms or advancing DLMO.
• Limitations: This study used self-reported measures for ADHD symptoms. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the exclusion criteria led to minimal comorbidity. The sample was comprised of a mostly Dutch population.

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention, impulsivity, and/or hyperactivity that causes functional impairment.¹ ADHD begins in childhood, continues into adulthood, and has negative consequences in many facets of adult patients’ lives, including their careers, daily functioning, and interpersonal relationships.² According to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence’s recommendations, both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are advised for patients with ADHD.³ Although various pharmacotherapies are advised as first-line treatments for ADHD, they are frequently linked to unfavorable adverse effects, partial responses, chronic residual symptoms, high dropout rates, and issues with addiction.⁴ As a result, there is a need for evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies.

In a systematic review, Nimmo-Smith et al⁵ found that certain nonpharmacologic treatments can be effective in helping patients with ADHD manage their illness. In clinical and cognitive assessments of ADHD, a recent meta-analysis found that noninvasive brain stimulation had a small but significant effect.⁶ Some evidence suggests that in addition to noninvasive brain stimulation, other nonpharmacologic interventions, including psychoeducation (PE), mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and chronotherapy, can be effective as an adjunct treatment to pharmacotherapy, and possibly as monotherapy.

Part 1 of this 2-part article reviewed 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic interventions for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years.⁷ Part 2 analyzes 6 RCTs of nonpharmacologic treatments for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years (Table^8-13).

1. Leffa DT, Grevet EH, Bau CHD, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation vs sham for the treatment of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the TUNED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(9):847-856. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.2055

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses noninvasive, low-intensity electrical current on the scalp to affect underlying cortical activity.¹⁴ This form of neurostimulation offers an alternative treatment option for when medications fail or are not tolerated, and can be used at home without the direct involvement of a clinician.¹⁴ tDCS as a treatment for ADHD has been increasingly researched, though many studies have been limited by short treatment periods and varied methodological approaches. In a meta-analysis, Westwood et al⁶ found a trend toward improvement on the function of processing speed but not on attention. Leffa et al⁸ examined the efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of home-based tDCS in adult patients with ADHD, specifically looking at reduction in inattention symptoms.

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluated 64 participants age 18 to 60 from a single center in Brazil who met DSM-5 criteria for combined or primarily inattentive ADHD.
• Inclusion criteria included an inattention score ≥21 on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS). This scale assesses both inattentive symptoms (CASRS-I) and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (CASRS-HI). Participants were not being treated with stimulants or agreed to undergo a 30-day washout of stimulants prior to the study.
• Exclusion criteria included current moderate to severe depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI] score >21), current moderate to severe anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI] score ≥21), diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) with either a manic or depressive episode in the year prior to study, diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), positive screen for substance use, unstable medical condition resulting in poor functionality, pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant within 3 months of the study, not able to use home-based equipment, history of neurosurgery, presence of ferromagnetic metal in the head or presence of implanted medical devices in head/neck region, or history of epilepsy with reported seizures in the year prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to self-administer real or sham tDCS; the devices looked the same. Participants underwent daily 30-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct constant current for a total of 28 sessions. Sham treatment involved a 30-second ramp-up to 2-mA and a 30-second ramp-down sensation at the beginning, middle, and end of each respective session.
• The primary outcome was a change in symptoms of inattention per CASRS-I. Secondary outcomes were scores on the CASRS-HI, BDI, BAI, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions-Adult (BRIEF-A), which evaluates executive function.

Outcomes

• A total of 53 participants used stimulant medications prior to the study and 8 required a washout. The average age was 38.3, and 53% of participants were male.
• For the 55 participants who completed 4 weeks of treatment, the mean number of sessions was 25.2 in the tDCS group and 24.8 in the sham group.
• At the end of Week 4, there was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction in CASRS-I scores in the tDCS group compared to the sham group (18.88 vs 23.63 on final CASRS-I scores; P < .001).
• There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions/limitations

• This study showed the benefits of 4 weeks of home-based tDCS for managing inattentive symptoms in adults with ADHD. The authors noted that extended treatment of tDCS may incur greater benefit, as this study used a longer treatment course compared to others that have used a shorter duration of treatment (ie, days instead of weeks). Additionally, this study placed the anodal electrode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) vs over the left DLPFC, because there may be a decrease in activation in the right DLPFC in adults with ADHD undergoing attention tasks.¹⁵
• This study also showed that home-based tDCS can be an easier and more accessible way for patients to receive treatment, as opposed to needing to visit a health care facility.
• Limitations: The dropout rate (although only 2 of 7 participants who dropped out of the active group withdrew due to adverse events), lack of remote monitoring of patients, and restrictive inclusion criteria limit the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, 3 patients in the tDCS group and 7 in the sham group were taking psychotropic medications for anxiety or depression.

Continue to: #2

Previous research has shown that using mindfulness-based approaches can improve ADHD symptoms.^16,17 Hoxhaj et al⁹ looked at the effectiveness of mindfulness awareness practices (MAP) for alleviating ADHD symptoms.

Study design

• This RCT enrolled 81 adults from a German medical center who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, were not taking any ADHD medications, and had not undergone any psychotherapeutic treatments in the last 3 months. Participants were randomized to receive MAP (n = 41) or PE (n = 40).
• Exclusion criteria included having a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia, BD I, active substance dependence, ASD, suicidality, self-injurious behavior, or neurologic disorders.
• The MAP group underwent 8 weekly 2.5-hour sessions, plus homework involving meditation and other exercises. The PE group was given information regarding ADHD and management options, including organization and stress management skills.
• Patients were assessed 2 weeks before treatment (T1), at the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• The primary outcome was the change in the blind-observer rated Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) inattention/memory scales from T1 to T2.
• Secondary outcomes included the other CAARS subscales, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the BDI, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

Outcomes

• Baseline demographics did not differ between groups other than the MAP group having a significantly higher IQ than the PE group. However, this difference resolved after the final sample was analyzed, as there were 2 dropouts and 7 participants lost to follow-up in the MAP group and 4 dropouts and 4 participants lost to follow-up in the PE group.
• There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary outcome of observer-rated CAARS inattention/memory subscale scores, or other ADHD symptoms per the CAARS.
• However, there was a significant difference within each group on all ADHD subscales of the observer-rated CAARS at T2. Persistent, significant differences were noted for the observer-rated CAARS subscales of self-concept and DSM-IV Inattentive Symptoms, and all CAARS self-report scales to T3.
• Compared to the PE group, there was a significantly larger improvement in the MAP group on scores of the mindfulness parameters of observation and nonreactivity to inner experience.
• There were significant improvements regarding depression per the BDI and global severity per the BSI in both treatment groups, with no differences between the groups.
• At T3, in the MAP group, 3 patients received methylphenidate, 1 received atomoxetine, and 1 received antidepressant medication. In the PE group, 2 patients took methylphenidate, and 2 participants took antidepressants.
• There was a significant difference regarding sex and response, with men experiencing less overall improvement than women.

Conclusions/limitations

• MAP was not superior to PE in terms of changes on CAARS scores, although within each group, both therapies showed improvement over time.
• While there may be gender-specific differences in processing information and coping strategies, future research should examine the differences between men and women with different therapeutic approaches.
• Limitations: This study did not employ a true placebo but instead had 2 active arms. Generalizability is limited due to a lack of certain comorbidities and use of medications.

Continue to: #3

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a form of psychotherapy that combines mindfulness with the principles of CBT. Hepark et al¹⁸ found benefits of MBCT for reducing ADHD symptoms. In a larger, multicenter, single-blind RCT, Janssen et al¹⁰ reviewed the efficacy of MBCT compared to treatment as usual (TAU).

Study design

• A total of 120 participants age ≥18 who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD were recruited from Dutch clinics and advertisements and randomized to receive MBCT plus TAU (n = 60) or TAU alone (n = 60). There were no significant demographic differences between groups at baseline.
• Exclusion criteria included active depression with psychosis or suicidality, active manic episode, tic disorder with vocal tics, ASD, learning or other cognitive impairments, borderline or antisocial personality disorder, substance dependence, or previous participation in MBCT or other mindfulness-based interventions. Participants also had to be able to complete the questionnaires in Dutch.
• Blinded evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), at the completion of therapy (T1), 3 months after the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• MBCT included 8 weekly, 2.5-hour sessions and a 6-hour silent session between the sixth and seventh sessions. Patients participated in various meditation techniques with the addition of PE, CBT, and group discussions. They were also instructed to practice guided exercises 6 days/week, for approximately 30 minutes/day.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD symptoms as assessed by the investigator-rated CAARS (CAARS-INV) at T1.
• Secondary outcomes included change in scores on the CAARS: Screening Version (CAARS-S:SV), BRIEF-A, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-Short Form (FFMQ-SF), Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF), Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), and Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2).

Outcomes

• In the MBCT group, participants who dropped out (n = 9) were less likely to be using ADHD medication at baseline than those who completed the study.
• At T1, the MBCT plus TAU group had significantly less ADHD symptoms on CAARS-INV compared to TAU (d = 0.41, P = .004), with more participants in the MBCT plus TAU group experiencing a symptom reduction ≥30% (24% vs 7%, P = .001) and remission (P = .039).
• The MBCT plus TAU group also had a significant reduction in scores on CAARS-S:SV as well as significant improvement on self-compassion per SCS-SF, mindfulness skills per FFMQ-SF, and positive mental health per MHC-SF, but not on executive functioning per BRIEF-A or general functioning per OQ 45.2.
• Over 6-month follow-up, there continued to be significant improvement in CAARS-INV, CAARS-S:SV, mindfulness skills, self-compassion, and positive mental health in the MBCT plus TAU group compared to TAU. The difference in executive functioning (BRIEF-A) also became significant over time.

Conclusions/limitations

• MBCT plus TAU appears to be effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, both from a clinician-rated and self-reported perspective, with improvements lasting up to 6 months.
• There were also improvements in mindfulness, self-compassion, and positive mental health posttreatment in the MBCT plus TAU group, with improvement in executive functioning seen over the follow-up periods.
• Limitations: The sample was drawn solely from a Dutch population and did not assess the success of blinding.

Continue to: #4

Managing adult ADHD can include PE, but few studies have reviewed the effectiveness of formal clinical PE. PE is “systemic, didactic-psychotherapeutic interventions, which are adequate for informing patients and their relatives about the illness and its treatment, facilitating both an understanding and personally responsible handling of the illness and supporting those afflicted in coping with the disorder.”¹⁹ Selaskowski et al¹¹ investigated the feasibility of using smartphone-assisted PE (SAP) for adults diagnosed with ADHD.

Study design

• Participants were 60 adults age 18 to 65 who met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD. They were required to have a working comprehension of the German language and access to an Android-powered smartphone.
• Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, severe affective disorder, severe neurologic disorder, or initial use or dose change of ADHD medications 2 weeks prior to baseline.
• Participants were randomized to SAP (n = 30) or brochure-assisted PE (BAP) (n = 30). The demographics at baseline were mostly balanced between the groups except for substance abuse (5 in the SAP group vs 0 in the BAP group; P = .022).
• The primary outcome was severity of total ADHD symptoms, which was assessed by blinded evaluations conducted at baseline (T0) and after 8 weekly PE sessions (T1).
• Secondary outcomes included dropout rates, improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by the German BDI-II, improvement in functional impairment as measured by the Weiss Functional Impairment Scale (WFIRS), homework performed, attendance, and obtained PE knowledge.
• Both groups attended 8 weekly 1-hour PE group sessions led by 2 therapists and comprised of 10 participants.

Outcomes

• Only 43 of the 60 initial participants completed the study; 24 in the SAP group and 19 in the BAP group.
• The SAP group experienced a significant symptom improvement of 33.4% from T0 to T1 compared to the BAP group, which experienced a symptom improvement of 17.3% (P = .019).
• ADHD core symptoms considerably decreased in both groups. There was no significant difference between groups (P = .74).
• SAP dramatically improved inattention (P = .019), improved impulsivity (P = .03), and increased completed homework (P < .001), compared to the BAP group.
• There was no significant difference in correctly answered quiz questions or in BDI-II or WFIRS scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Both SAP and BAP appear to be effective methods for PE, but patients who participated in SAP showed greater improvements than those who participated in BAP.
• Limitations: This study lacked a control intervention that was substantially different from SAP and lacked follow-up. The sample was a mostly German population, participants were required to have smartphone access beforehand, and substance abuse was more common in the SAP group.

Continue to: #5

CBT has demonstrated long-term benefit for the core symptoms of ADHD, comorbid symptoms (anxiety and depression), and social functioning. For ADHD, pharmacotherapies have a bottom-up effect where they increase neurotransmitter concentration, leading to an effect in the prefrontal lobe, whereas psychotherapies affect behavior-related brain activity in the prefrontal lobes, leading to the release of neurotransmitters. Pan et al¹² compared the benefits of CBT plus medication (CBT + M) to CBT alone on core ADHD symptoms, social functioning, and comorbid symptoms.

Study design

• The sample consisted of 124 participants age >18 who had received a diagnosis of adult ADHD according to DSM-IV via Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview and were either outpatients at Peking University Sixth Hospital or participants in a previous RCT (Huang et al²⁰).
• Exclusion criteria included organic mental disorders, high suicide risk in those with major depressive disorder, acute BD episode requiring medication or severe panic disorder or psychotic disorder requiring medication, pervasive developmental disorder, previous or current involvement in other psychological therapies, IQ <90, unstable physical conditions requiring medical treatment, attending <7 CBT sessions, or having serious adverse effects from medication.
• Participants received CBT + M (n = 57) or CBT alone (n = 67); 40 (70.18%) participants in the CBT + M group received methylphenidate hydrochloride controlled-release tablets (average dose 27.45 ± 9.97 mg) and 17 (29.82%) received atomoxetine hydrochloride (average dose 46.35 ± 20.09 mg). There were no significant demographic differences between groups.
• CBT consisted of 12 weekly 2-hour sessions (8 to 12 participants in each group) that were led by 2 trained psychiatrist therapists and focused on behavioral and cognitive strategies.
• Participants in the CBT alone group were drug-naïve and those in CBT + M group were stable on medications.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) score from baseline to Week 12.
• Secondary outcomes included Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-Esteem Scale (SES), executive functioning (BRIEF-A), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief version [WHOQOL-BREF]).

Outcomes

• ADHD-RS total, impulsiveness-hyperactivity subscale, and inattention subscale scores significantly improved in both groups (P < .01). The improvements were greater in the CBT + M group compared to the CBT-only group, but the differences were not statistically significant.
• There was no significant difference between groups in remission rate (P < .689).
• There was a significant improvement in SAS, SES, and SDS scores in both groups (P < .01).
• In terms of the WHOQOL-BREF, the CBT + M group experienced improvements only in the psychological and environmental domains, while the CBT-only group significantly improved across the board. The CBT-only group experienced greater improvement in the physical domain (P < .01).
• Both groups displayed considerable improvements in the Metacognition Index and Global Executive Composite for BRIEF-A. The shift, self-monitor, initiate, working memory, plan/organize, task monitor, and material organization skills significantly improved in the CBT + M group. The only areas where the CBT group significantly improved were initiate, material organization, and working memory. No significant differences in BRIEF-A effectiveness were discovered.

Conclusions/limitations

• CBT is an effective treatment for improving core ADHD symptoms.
• This study was unable to establish that CBT alone was preferable to CBT + M, particularly in terms of core symptoms, emotional symptoms, or self-esteem.
• CBT + M could lead to a greater improvement in executive function than CBT alone.
• Limitations: This study used previous databases rather than RCTs. There was no placebo in the CBT-only group. The findings may not be generalizable because participants had high education levels and IQ. The study lacked follow-up after 12 weeks.

Continue to: #6

Most individuals with ADHD have a delayed circadian rhythm.²¹ Delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS) is diagnosed when a persistently delayed circadian rhythm is not brought on by other diseases or medications. ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm may both benefit from DSPS treatment. A 3-armed randomized clinical parallel-group trial by van Andel et al¹³ investigated the effects of chronotherapy on ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm.

Study design

• Participants were Dutch-speaking individuals age 18 to 55 who were diagnosed with ADHD and DSPS. They were randomized to receive melatonin 0.5 mg/d (n = 17), placebo (n = 17), or melatonin 0.5 mg/d plus 30 minutes of timed morning bright light therapy (BLT) (n = 15) daily for 3 weeks. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups except that the melatonin plus BLT group had higher use of oral contraceptives (P = .007).
• This study was completed in the Netherlands with participants from an outpatient adult ADHD clinic.
• Exclusion criteria included epilepsy, psychotic disorders, anxiety or depression requiring acute treatment, alcohol intake >15 units/week in women or >21 units/week in men, ADHD medications, medications affecting sleep, use of drugs, mental retardation, amnestic disorder, dementia, cognitive dysfunction, crossed >2 time zones in the 2 weeks prior to the study, shift work within the previous month, having children disturbing sleep, glaucoma, retinopathy, having BLT within the previous month, pregnancy, lactation, or trying to conceive.
• The study consisted of 3-armed placebo-controlled parallel groups in which 2 were double-blind (melatonin group and placebo group).
• During the first week of treatment, medication was taken 3 hours before dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO) and later advanced to 4 and 5 hours in Week 2 and Week 3, respectively. BLT was used at 20 cm from the eyes for 30 minutes every morning between 7 am and 8 am.
• The primary outcome was DLMO in which radioimmunoassay was used to determine melatonin concentrations. DLMO was used as a marker for internal circadian rhythm.
• The secondary outcome was ADHD symptoms using the Dutch version of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV.
• Evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), the conclusion of treatment (T1), and 2 weeks after the end of treatment (T2).

Outcomes

• Out of 51 participants, 2 dropped out of the melatonin plus BLT group before baseline, and 3 dropped out of the placebo group before T1.
• At baseline, the average DLMO was 11:43 pm ± 1 hour and 46 minutes, with 77% of participants experiencing DLMO after 11 pm. Melatonin advanced DLMO by 1 hour and 28 minutes (P = .001) and melatonin plus BLT had an advance of 1 hour and 58 minutes (P < .001). DLMO was unaffected by placebo.
• The melatonin group experienced a 14% reduction in ADHD symptoms (P = .038); the placebo and melatonin plus BLT groups did not experience a reduction.
• DLMO and ADHD symptoms returned to baseline 2 weeks after therapy ended.

Conclusions/limitations

• In patients with DSPS and ADHD, low-dose melatonin can improve internal circadian rhythm and decrease ADHD symptoms.
• Melatonin plus BLT was not effective in improving ADHD symptoms or advancing DLMO.
• Limitations: This study used self-reported measures for ADHD symptoms. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the exclusion criteria led to minimal comorbidity. The sample was comprised of a mostly Dutch population.

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental disorder characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention, impulsivity, and/or hyperactivity that causes functional impairment.¹ ADHD begins in childhood, continues into adulthood, and has negative consequences in many facets of adult patients’ lives, including their careers, daily functioning, and interpersonal relationships.² According to the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence’s recommendations, both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are advised for patients with ADHD.³ Although various pharmacotherapies are advised as first-line treatments for ADHD, they are frequently linked to unfavorable adverse effects, partial responses, chronic residual symptoms, high dropout rates, and issues with addiction.⁴ As a result, there is a need for evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies.

In a systematic review, Nimmo-Smith et al⁵ found that certain nonpharmacologic treatments can be effective in helping patients with ADHD manage their illness. In clinical and cognitive assessments of ADHD, a recent meta-analysis found that noninvasive brain stimulation had a small but significant effect.⁶ Some evidence suggests that in addition to noninvasive brain stimulation, other nonpharmacologic interventions, including psychoeducation (PE), mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and chronotherapy, can be effective as an adjunct treatment to pharmacotherapy, and possibly as monotherapy.

Part 1 of this 2-part article reviewed 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacologic interventions for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years.⁷ Part 2 analyzes 6 RCTs of nonpharmacologic treatments for adult ADHD published within the last 5 years (Table^8-13).

1. Leffa DT, Grevet EH, Bau CHD, et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation vs sham for the treatment of inattention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the TUNED randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79(9):847-856. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.2055

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) uses noninvasive, low-intensity electrical current on the scalp to affect underlying cortical activity.¹⁴ This form of neurostimulation offers an alternative treatment option for when medications fail or are not tolerated, and can be used at home without the direct involvement of a clinician.¹⁴ tDCS as a treatment for ADHD has been increasingly researched, though many studies have been limited by short treatment periods and varied methodological approaches. In a meta-analysis, Westwood et al⁶ found a trend toward improvement on the function of processing speed but not on attention. Leffa et al⁸ examined the efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of home-based tDCS in adult patients with ADHD, specifically looking at reduction in inattention symptoms.

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluated 64 participants age 18 to 60 from a single center in Brazil who met DSM-5 criteria for combined or primarily inattentive ADHD.
• Inclusion criteria included an inattention score ≥21 on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS). This scale assesses both inattentive symptoms (CASRS-I) and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms (CASRS-HI). Participants were not being treated with stimulants or agreed to undergo a 30-day washout of stimulants prior to the study.
• Exclusion criteria included current moderate to severe depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI] score >21), current moderate to severe anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI] score ≥21), diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) with either a manic or depressive episode in the year prior to study, diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), positive screen for substance use, unstable medical condition resulting in poor functionality, pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant within 3 months of the study, not able to use home-based equipment, history of neurosurgery, presence of ferromagnetic metal in the head or presence of implanted medical devices in head/neck region, or history of epilepsy with reported seizures in the year prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to self-administer real or sham tDCS; the devices looked the same. Participants underwent daily 30-minute sessions using a 2-mA direct constant current for a total of 28 sessions. Sham treatment involved a 30-second ramp-up to 2-mA and a 30-second ramp-down sensation at the beginning, middle, and end of each respective session.
• The primary outcome was a change in symptoms of inattention per CASRS-I. Secondary outcomes were scores on the CASRS-HI, BDI, BAI, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions-Adult (BRIEF-A), which evaluates executive function.

Outcomes

• A total of 53 participants used stimulant medications prior to the study and 8 required a washout. The average age was 38.3, and 53% of participants were male.
• For the 55 participants who completed 4 weeks of treatment, the mean number of sessions was 25.2 in the tDCS group and 24.8 in the sham group.
• At the end of Week 4, there was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction in CASRS-I scores in the tDCS group compared to the sham group (18.88 vs 23.63 on final CASRS-I scores; P < .001).
• There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions/limitations

• This study showed the benefits of 4 weeks of home-based tDCS for managing inattentive symptoms in adults with ADHD. The authors noted that extended treatment of tDCS may incur greater benefit, as this study used a longer treatment course compared to others that have used a shorter duration of treatment (ie, days instead of weeks). Additionally, this study placed the anodal electrode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) vs over the left DLPFC, because there may be a decrease in activation in the right DLPFC in adults with ADHD undergoing attention tasks.¹⁵
• This study also showed that home-based tDCS can be an easier and more accessible way for patients to receive treatment, as opposed to needing to visit a health care facility.
• Limitations: The dropout rate (although only 2 of 7 participants who dropped out of the active group withdrew due to adverse events), lack of remote monitoring of patients, and restrictive inclusion criteria limit the generalizability of these findings. Additionally, 3 patients in the tDCS group and 7 in the sham group were taking psychotropic medications for anxiety or depression.

Continue to: #2

Previous research has shown that using mindfulness-based approaches can improve ADHD symptoms.^16,17 Hoxhaj et al⁹ looked at the effectiveness of mindfulness awareness practices (MAP) for alleviating ADHD symptoms.

Study design

• This RCT enrolled 81 adults from a German medical center who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, were not taking any ADHD medications, and had not undergone any psychotherapeutic treatments in the last 3 months. Participants were randomized to receive MAP (n = 41) or PE (n = 40).
• Exclusion criteria included having a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia, BD I, active substance dependence, ASD, suicidality, self-injurious behavior, or neurologic disorders.
• The MAP group underwent 8 weekly 2.5-hour sessions, plus homework involving meditation and other exercises. The PE group was given information regarding ADHD and management options, including organization and stress management skills.
• Patients were assessed 2 weeks before treatment (T1), at the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• The primary outcome was the change in the blind-observer rated Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) inattention/memory scales from T1 to T2.
• Secondary outcomes included the other CAARS subscales, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), the BDI, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

Outcomes

• Baseline demographics did not differ between groups other than the MAP group having a significantly higher IQ than the PE group. However, this difference resolved after the final sample was analyzed, as there were 2 dropouts and 7 participants lost to follow-up in the MAP group and 4 dropouts and 4 participants lost to follow-up in the PE group.
• There was no significant difference between the groups in the primary outcome of observer-rated CAARS inattention/memory subscale scores, or other ADHD symptoms per the CAARS.
• However, there was a significant difference within each group on all ADHD subscales of the observer-rated CAARS at T2. Persistent, significant differences were noted for the observer-rated CAARS subscales of self-concept and DSM-IV Inattentive Symptoms, and all CAARS self-report scales to T3.
• Compared to the PE group, there was a significantly larger improvement in the MAP group on scores of the mindfulness parameters of observation and nonreactivity to inner experience.
• There were significant improvements regarding depression per the BDI and global severity per the BSI in both treatment groups, with no differences between the groups.
• At T3, in the MAP group, 3 patients received methylphenidate, 1 received atomoxetine, and 1 received antidepressant medication. In the PE group, 2 patients took methylphenidate, and 2 participants took antidepressants.
• There was a significant difference regarding sex and response, with men experiencing less overall improvement than women.

Conclusions/limitations

• MAP was not superior to PE in terms of changes on CAARS scores, although within each group, both therapies showed improvement over time.
• While there may be gender-specific differences in processing information and coping strategies, future research should examine the differences between men and women with different therapeutic approaches.
• Limitations: This study did not employ a true placebo but instead had 2 active arms. Generalizability is limited due to a lack of certain comorbidities and use of medications.

Continue to: #3

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a form of psychotherapy that combines mindfulness with the principles of CBT. Hepark et al¹⁸ found benefits of MBCT for reducing ADHD symptoms. In a larger, multicenter, single-blind RCT, Janssen et al¹⁰ reviewed the efficacy of MBCT compared to treatment as usual (TAU).

Study design

• A total of 120 participants age ≥18 who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD were recruited from Dutch clinics and advertisements and randomized to receive MBCT plus TAU (n = 60) or TAU alone (n = 60). There were no significant demographic differences between groups at baseline.
• Exclusion criteria included active depression with psychosis or suicidality, active manic episode, tic disorder with vocal tics, ASD, learning or other cognitive impairments, borderline or antisocial personality disorder, substance dependence, or previous participation in MBCT or other mindfulness-based interventions. Participants also had to be able to complete the questionnaires in Dutch.
• Blinded evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), at the completion of therapy (T1), 3 months after the completion of therapy (T2), and 6 months after the completion of therapy (T3).
• MBCT included 8 weekly, 2.5-hour sessions and a 6-hour silent session between the sixth and seventh sessions. Patients participated in various meditation techniques with the addition of PE, CBT, and group discussions. They were also instructed to practice guided exercises 6 days/week, for approximately 30 minutes/day.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD symptoms as assessed by the investigator-rated CAARS (CAARS-INV) at T1.
• Secondary outcomes included change in scores on the CAARS: Screening Version (CAARS-S:SV), BRIEF-A, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-Short Form (FFMQ-SF), Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF), Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF), and Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2).

Outcomes

• In the MBCT group, participants who dropped out (n = 9) were less likely to be using ADHD medication at baseline than those who completed the study.
• At T1, the MBCT plus TAU group had significantly less ADHD symptoms on CAARS-INV compared to TAU (d = 0.41, P = .004), with more participants in the MBCT plus TAU group experiencing a symptom reduction ≥30% (24% vs 7%, P = .001) and remission (P = .039).
• The MBCT plus TAU group also had a significant reduction in scores on CAARS-S:SV as well as significant improvement on self-compassion per SCS-SF, mindfulness skills per FFMQ-SF, and positive mental health per MHC-SF, but not on executive functioning per BRIEF-A or general functioning per OQ 45.2.
• Over 6-month follow-up, there continued to be significant improvement in CAARS-INV, CAARS-S:SV, mindfulness skills, self-compassion, and positive mental health in the MBCT plus TAU group compared to TAU. The difference in executive functioning (BRIEF-A) also became significant over time.

Conclusions/limitations

• MBCT plus TAU appears to be effective for reducing ADHD symptoms, both from a clinician-rated and self-reported perspective, with improvements lasting up to 6 months.
• There were also improvements in mindfulness, self-compassion, and positive mental health posttreatment in the MBCT plus TAU group, with improvement in executive functioning seen over the follow-up periods.
• Limitations: The sample was drawn solely from a Dutch population and did not assess the success of blinding.

Continue to: #4

Managing adult ADHD can include PE, but few studies have reviewed the effectiveness of formal clinical PE. PE is “systemic, didactic-psychotherapeutic interventions, which are adequate for informing patients and their relatives about the illness and its treatment, facilitating both an understanding and personally responsible handling of the illness and supporting those afflicted in coping with the disorder.”¹⁹ Selaskowski et al¹¹ investigated the feasibility of using smartphone-assisted PE (SAP) for adults diagnosed with ADHD.

Study design

• Participants were 60 adults age 18 to 65 who met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD. They were required to have a working comprehension of the German language and access to an Android-powered smartphone.
• Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, severe affective disorder, severe neurologic disorder, or initial use or dose change of ADHD medications 2 weeks prior to baseline.
• Participants were randomized to SAP (n = 30) or brochure-assisted PE (BAP) (n = 30). The demographics at baseline were mostly balanced between the groups except for substance abuse (5 in the SAP group vs 0 in the BAP group; P = .022).
• The primary outcome was severity of total ADHD symptoms, which was assessed by blinded evaluations conducted at baseline (T0) and after 8 weekly PE sessions (T1).
• Secondary outcomes included dropout rates, improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by the German BDI-II, improvement in functional impairment as measured by the Weiss Functional Impairment Scale (WFIRS), homework performed, attendance, and obtained PE knowledge.
• Both groups attended 8 weekly 1-hour PE group sessions led by 2 therapists and comprised of 10 participants.

Outcomes

• Only 43 of the 60 initial participants completed the study; 24 in the SAP group and 19 in the BAP group.
• The SAP group experienced a significant symptom improvement of 33.4% from T0 to T1 compared to the BAP group, which experienced a symptom improvement of 17.3% (P = .019).
• ADHD core symptoms considerably decreased in both groups. There was no significant difference between groups (P = .74).
• SAP dramatically improved inattention (P = .019), improved impulsivity (P = .03), and increased completed homework (P < .001), compared to the BAP group.
• There was no significant difference in correctly answered quiz questions or in BDI-II or WFIRS scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Both SAP and BAP appear to be effective methods for PE, but patients who participated in SAP showed greater improvements than those who participated in BAP.
• Limitations: This study lacked a control intervention that was substantially different from SAP and lacked follow-up. The sample was a mostly German population, participants were required to have smartphone access beforehand, and substance abuse was more common in the SAP group.

Continue to: #5

CBT has demonstrated long-term benefit for the core symptoms of ADHD, comorbid symptoms (anxiety and depression), and social functioning. For ADHD, pharmacotherapies have a bottom-up effect where they increase neurotransmitter concentration, leading to an effect in the prefrontal lobe, whereas psychotherapies affect behavior-related brain activity in the prefrontal lobes, leading to the release of neurotransmitters. Pan et al¹² compared the benefits of CBT plus medication (CBT + M) to CBT alone on core ADHD symptoms, social functioning, and comorbid symptoms.

Study design

• The sample consisted of 124 participants age >18 who had received a diagnosis of adult ADHD according to DSM-IV via Conner’s Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview and were either outpatients at Peking University Sixth Hospital or participants in a previous RCT (Huang et al²⁰).
• Exclusion criteria included organic mental disorders, high suicide risk in those with major depressive disorder, acute BD episode requiring medication or severe panic disorder or psychotic disorder requiring medication, pervasive developmental disorder, previous or current involvement in other psychological therapies, IQ <90, unstable physical conditions requiring medical treatment, attending <7 CBT sessions, or having serious adverse effects from medication.
• Participants received CBT + M (n = 57) or CBT alone (n = 67); 40 (70.18%) participants in the CBT + M group received methylphenidate hydrochloride controlled-release tablets (average dose 27.45 ± 9.97 mg) and 17 (29.82%) received atomoxetine hydrochloride (average dose 46.35 ± 20.09 mg). There were no significant demographic differences between groups.
• CBT consisted of 12 weekly 2-hour sessions (8 to 12 participants in each group) that were led by 2 trained psychiatrist therapists and focused on behavioral and cognitive strategies.
• Participants in the CBT alone group were drug-naïve and those in CBT + M group were stable on medications.
• The primary outcome was change in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) score from baseline to Week 12.
• Secondary outcomes included Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-Esteem Scale (SES), executive functioning (BRIEF-A), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief version [WHOQOL-BREF]).

Outcomes

• ADHD-RS total, impulsiveness-hyperactivity subscale, and inattention subscale scores significantly improved in both groups (P < .01). The improvements were greater in the CBT + M group compared to the CBT-only group, but the differences were not statistically significant.
• There was no significant difference between groups in remission rate (P < .689).
• There was a significant improvement in SAS, SES, and SDS scores in both groups (P < .01).
• In terms of the WHOQOL-BREF, the CBT + M group experienced improvements only in the psychological and environmental domains, while the CBT-only group significantly improved across the board. The CBT-only group experienced greater improvement in the physical domain (P < .01).
• Both groups displayed considerable improvements in the Metacognition Index and Global Executive Composite for BRIEF-A. The shift, self-monitor, initiate, working memory, plan/organize, task monitor, and material organization skills significantly improved in the CBT + M group. The only areas where the CBT group significantly improved were initiate, material organization, and working memory. No significant differences in BRIEF-A effectiveness were discovered.

Conclusions/limitations

• CBT is an effective treatment for improving core ADHD symptoms.
• This study was unable to establish that CBT alone was preferable to CBT + M, particularly in terms of core symptoms, emotional symptoms, or self-esteem.
• CBT + M could lead to a greater improvement in executive function than CBT alone.
• Limitations: This study used previous databases rather than RCTs. There was no placebo in the CBT-only group. The findings may not be generalizable because participants had high education levels and IQ. The study lacked follow-up after 12 weeks.

Continue to: #6

Most individuals with ADHD have a delayed circadian rhythm.²¹ Delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS) is diagnosed when a persistently delayed circadian rhythm is not brought on by other diseases or medications. ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm may both benefit from DSPS treatment. A 3-armed randomized clinical parallel-group trial by van Andel et al¹³ investigated the effects of chronotherapy on ADHD symptoms and circadian rhythm.

Study design

• Participants were Dutch-speaking individuals age 18 to 55 who were diagnosed with ADHD and DSPS. They were randomized to receive melatonin 0.5 mg/d (n = 17), placebo (n = 17), or melatonin 0.5 mg/d plus 30 minutes of timed morning bright light therapy (BLT) (n = 15) daily for 3 weeks. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups except that the melatonin plus BLT group had higher use of oral contraceptives (P = .007).
• This study was completed in the Netherlands with participants from an outpatient adult ADHD clinic.
• Exclusion criteria included epilepsy, psychotic disorders, anxiety or depression requiring acute treatment, alcohol intake >15 units/week in women or >21 units/week in men, ADHD medications, medications affecting sleep, use of drugs, mental retardation, amnestic disorder, dementia, cognitive dysfunction, crossed >2 time zones in the 2 weeks prior to the study, shift work within the previous month, having children disturbing sleep, glaucoma, retinopathy, having BLT within the previous month, pregnancy, lactation, or trying to conceive.
• The study consisted of 3-armed placebo-controlled parallel groups in which 2 were double-blind (melatonin group and placebo group).
• During the first week of treatment, medication was taken 3 hours before dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO) and later advanced to 4 and 5 hours in Week 2 and Week 3, respectively. BLT was used at 20 cm from the eyes for 30 minutes every morning between 7 am and 8 am.
• The primary outcome was DLMO in which radioimmunoassay was used to determine melatonin concentrations. DLMO was used as a marker for internal circadian rhythm.
• The secondary outcome was ADHD symptoms using the Dutch version of the ADHD Rating Scale-IV.
• Evaluations were conducted at baseline (T0), the conclusion of treatment (T1), and 2 weeks after the end of treatment (T2).

Outcomes

• Out of 51 participants, 2 dropped out of the melatonin plus BLT group before baseline, and 3 dropped out of the placebo group before T1.
• At baseline, the average DLMO was 11:43 pm ± 1 hour and 46 minutes, with 77% of participants experiencing DLMO after 11 pm. Melatonin advanced DLMO by 1 hour and 28 minutes (P = .001) and melatonin plus BLT had an advance of 1 hour and 58 minutes (P < .001). DLMO was unaffected by placebo.
• The melatonin group experienced a 14% reduction in ADHD symptoms (P = .038); the placebo and melatonin plus BLT groups did not experience a reduction.
• DLMO and ADHD symptoms returned to baseline 2 weeks after therapy ended.

Conclusions/limitations

• In patients with DSPS and ADHD, low-dose melatonin can improve internal circadian rhythm and decrease ADHD symptoms.
• Melatonin plus BLT was not effective in improving ADHD symptoms or advancing DLMO.
• Limitations: This study used self-reported measures for ADHD symptoms. The generalizability of the findings is limited because the exclusion criteria led to minimal comorbidity. The sample was comprised of a mostly Dutch population.