Like many physicians, I struggle with looking at my patients while they are talking and getting the stories that they tell me transcribed as accurately and completely as possible. After I read the article, “EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned” by Farber, et al, (J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696), I was struck by something.

Of the 126 patients chosen for the research, the educational level breakdown included 75% with at least some college education and 28% with postgraduate education. A study performed by the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics published in 2015 has different statistics.¹ Although a similar percentage had at least some college education, only 10.5% of the men and 12.4% of the women had postgraduate education.

In my practice, most of my patients who have worked with computers empathize with the amount of time that I spend looking at the screen. Those with less education are less agreeable. Since the patients were picked by their physicians to take part in the study, I wonder if there was an unconscious bias present.

Holly Leeds, MD
Auburn, Calif

1. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. Profile of Veterans: 2013. US Department of Veterans Affairs Web site. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile_of_Veterans_2013.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2016.

Author's response:
Dr. Leeds brings up an interesting issue. It is possible that there is an unconscious bias on the part of physicians who participated in this study. Although the demographics are fairly similar to those that she cites, the veterans in our study were somewhat more educated.

If less well-educated subjects participated, this would make the data more impressive, in terms of less satisfaction with physicians who more readily focus their eyes on computer screens rather than on their patients. The fact that we did find this association is important for physicians who use EHR systems.

Neil J. Farber, MD, FACP
San Diego, Calif

Like many physicians, I struggle with looking at my patients while they are talking and getting the stories that they tell me transcribed as accurately and completely as possible. After I read the article, “EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned” by Farber, et al, (J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696), I was struck by something.

Of the 126 patients chosen for the research, the educational level breakdown included 75% with at least some college education and 28% with postgraduate education. A study performed by the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics published in 2015 has different statistics.¹ Although a similar percentage had at least some college education, only 10.5% of the men and 12.4% of the women had postgraduate education.

In my practice, most of my patients who have worked with computers empathize with the amount of time that I spend looking at the screen. Those with less education are less agreeable. Since the patients were picked by their physicians to take part in the study, I wonder if there was an unconscious bias present.

Holly Leeds, MD
Auburn, Calif

1. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. Profile of Veterans: 2013. US Department of Veterans Affairs Web site. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile_of_Veterans_2013.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2016.

Author's response:
Dr. Leeds brings up an interesting issue. It is possible that there is an unconscious bias on the part of physicians who participated in this study. Although the demographics are fairly similar to those that she cites, the veterans in our study were somewhat more educated.

If less well-educated subjects participated, this would make the data more impressive, in terms of less satisfaction with physicians who more readily focus their eyes on computer screens rather than on their patients. The fact that we did find this association is important for physicians who use EHR systems.

Neil J. Farber, MD, FACP
San Diego, Calif

Like many physicians, I struggle with looking at my patients while they are talking and getting the stories that they tell me transcribed as accurately and completely as possible. After I read the article, “EHR use and patient satisfaction: What we learned” by Farber, et al, (J Fam Pract. 2015;64:687-696), I was struck by something.

Of the 126 patients chosen for the research, the educational level breakdown included 75% with at least some college education and 28% with postgraduate education. A study performed by the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics published in 2015 has different statistics.¹ Although a similar percentage had at least some college education, only 10.5% of the men and 12.4% of the women had postgraduate education.

In my practice, most of my patients who have worked with computers empathize with the amount of time that I spend looking at the screen. Those with less education are less agreeable. Since the patients were picked by their physicians to take part in the study, I wonder if there was an unconscious bias present.

Holly Leeds, MD
Auburn, Calif

1. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics. Profile of Veterans: 2013. US Department of Veterans Affairs Web site. Available at: http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile_of_Veterans_2013.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2016.

Author's response:
Dr. Leeds brings up an interesting issue. It is possible that there is an unconscious bias on the part of physicians who participated in this study. Although the demographics are fairly similar to those that she cites, the veterans in our study were somewhat more educated.

If less well-educated subjects participated, this would make the data more impressive, in terms of less satisfaction with physicians who more readily focus their eyes on computer screens rather than on their patients. The fact that we did find this association is important for physicians who use EHR systems.

Neil J. Farber, MD, FACP
San Diego, Calif

CASE › A 39-year-old Hispanic man with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and hypertension is referred for evaluation of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) and fatty liver on ultrasound. He is taking metformin and lisinopril, and a patient alcohol screening survey is negative. LFT results reveal the following: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 27 IU/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 43 IU/dL; albumin 4.2 g/dL; gamma glutamyl transferase 22 u/L; alkaline phosphatase 51 IU/L; and total bilirubin 0.3 mg/dL. Lactate dehydrogenase and prothrombin time are normal.

Results of his liver screen are as follows: hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C antibody, antimitochondrial antibody, and anti-smooth muscle antibody are negative, and iron, transferrin saturation, and ceruloplasmin are in normal range. Antinuclear antibody (1:20 dilution) is weakly positive, and alpha-1 antitrypsin (264 mg/dL) and serum ferritin (300 ng/mL) are mildly increased.

The patient undergoes a liver biopsy that shows grade 2 steatosis, grade 1 lobular inflammation, few ballooned hepatocytes, and stage 1 fibrosis. Based on these clinical findings, he is given a diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

NAFLD is the most frequent cause of chronic liver disease both in the United States and globally.¹ In fact, a number of long-term epidemiologic studies report that nearly one-third of the US population has the disease.² The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to cirrhosis. Of patients with NAFLD, 10% to 30% have the more severe form—NASH—and about 10% of those with NASH progress to cirrhosis and other liver-related complications.³

People with NAFLD consume no alcohol, or only a modest amount (ie, weekly intake <140 g in women and <210 g in men). Typically, they are asymptomatic with normal or mildly abnormal LFTs discovered as part of a preventive health screening. In patients with simple hepatic steatosis alone, serum ALT levels are higher than serum AST levels. (In contrast, patients with alcoholic liver injury and NASH with progressive fibrosis have higher serum AST than ALT levels.) A serum hepatitis panel and liver screen are negative for other explanations of chronic liver disease.

NAFLD is strongly associated with obesity, insulin resistance/T2DM, and hyperlipidemia, all of which are components of metabolic syndrome. Obesity, particularly central obesity, is highly predictive of hepatic steatosis and disease progression.⁴ T2DM occurs 5 to 9 times more frequently in people with NAFLD than in the general population,⁵ and, conversely, nearly 66% of patients with T2DM have NAFLD.^6,7 Furthermore, nearly 70% of patients with T2DM develop fatty liver and its consequences, including NASH, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.^5,7

4 therapeutic strategies. Based on our current understanding of the pathogenesis of NAFLD, there are 4 main therapeutic avenues: lifestyle modification, liver-directed pharmacotherapy, management of metabolic syndrome, and surveillance of the complications of cirrhosis. The review that follows explores the evidence to date for each.

Take steps to reduce weight and increase physical activity

The primary objective with NAFLD is to right the imbalance between calorie intake and utilization so as to reverse the obesity and insulin resistance underlying the disease.

Target carbohydrates. Current data clearly suggest that energy intake is significantly higher in patients with NAFLD than in those without the disease.⁸ Thus, reducing dietary carbohydrate and overall energy intake is beneficial to preventing and halting the progression of liver damage. Increased intake of high fructose corn syrup may be at least partially to blame; research has linked the substance to the occurrence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and NAFLD.⁹

The optimal diet to treat NAFLD is not known because of the difficulties inherent to performing well-designed dietary intervention trials and ensuring long-term compliance. At least one study reported that a Mediterranean diet helped reduce hepatic steatosis and improve insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic individuals.¹⁰ Generally, patients should avoid saturated fats, simple carbohydrates, and sweetened drinks, and they should be instructed to restrict calories to cause weight loss of about .5 kg to 1 kg per week until the target weight is achieved.¹¹

Current observational studies indicate that prudent calorie restriction combined with increased physical activity is the best strategy for achieving and sustaining optimum body weight; severe calorie restriction is likely to cause skeletal muscle loss that can aggravate NAFLD.

Encourage exercise. Aerobic exercise improves skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity—the primary underlying mechanism that causes NAFLD.¹² Although the optimum duration and intensity of exercise is not known, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that moderately intense training, high-intensity training, and/or resistance training improved hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance, but an effect on ALT was inconsistent.¹³ (None of these studies included histology as an outcome measure.)

Given the multitude of benefits of aerobic exercise, there is no question that patients with NAFLD should try to increase their physical activity and incorporate exercise into their daily routine.

Hold off on pharmacologic weight loss. Orlistat, an enteric lipase inhibitor, causes malabsorption of dietary fat, which leads to weight loss. Although one study demonstrated that orlistat improves ALT and steatosis in patients with NAFLD, a subsequent RCT concluded that orlistat with caloric restriction and vitamin E (800 IU/d) did not enhance weight loss over caloric restriction and vitamin E alone.¹⁴ Additionally, in patients with weight loss >9% of body weight, histologic improvement occurred independent of orlistat.¹⁴ Therefore, orlistat is not currently recommended for weight loss in patients with NAFLD.

Keep bariatric surgery on your radar. Bariatric-metabolic surgery provides the most reliable method for achieving sustained weight loss in morbidly obese individuals with NAFLD. Commonly used surgical procedures are associated with reduced steatosis and lobular inflammatory changes, but reports are conflicting regarding fibrosis.¹⁵

The majority of published data indicate that bariatric surgery improves the histologic and metabolic changes associated with NAFLD and has potential as a treatment option for patients with morbid obesity and NAFLD. However, the timing and type of surgery that is most effective, and whether bariatric surgery can cure the disease, remain unanswered questions. Long-term follow-up and RCTs are needed to address these issues. As a result, no definitive recommendations regarding bariatric surgery as a treatment for NAFLD can be made at this time.¹⁵

Liver-directed pharmacotherapy: Evidence is lacking for many agents

Lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of therapy for NAFLD because of its efficacy and lack of adverse effects. But low compliance rates often make pharmacotherapy necessary to reduce the health burden related to NAFLD. Despite the success rate of pharmacologic agents that focus on insulin resistance and lipid metabolism and that have antioxidant properties, the long-term safety and efficacy of many of these agents is largely unknown. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved any pharmacologic agents specifically for the treatment of NAFLD. Here’s what we know:

Vitamin E. Five RCTs have evaluated the antioxidant vitamin E in patients with NASH. The best study published to date found that 96 weeks of therapy with 800 IU/d vitamin E was associated with a 42% improvement in hepatic histology, compared with 19% improvement in the placebo group.¹⁶ Vitamin E was also associated with improved serum ALT.

Although vitamin E seems to be a promising agent for the treatment of NASH, concerns exist about its long-term safety because of an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁷ In addition, because the optimal dose and duration of treatment is unknown and because studies have not evaluated the supplement in patients who have diabetes and NASH, vitamin E is not currently considered to be a standard therapy for NASH.

Insulin sensitizers. Because insulin resistance is believed to be the underlying mechanism for the development and progression of NAFLD, a compelling rationale exists for the use of insulin sensitizers in the management of the disease. Metformin, an activator of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, and the thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are the most extensively studied agents in clinical trials. A number of studies looking at the effects of metformin on NAFLD found that liver function, steatosis, and insulin sensitivity improved;¹⁸ however, a recent meta-analysis found that metformin failed to improve liver histology.¹⁹

Similarly, although clinical trials have shown that thiazolidinediones improve liver enzymes, inflammatory markers, and hepatic steatosis, questions surround their long-term safety.²⁰ The largest placebo-controlled trial on this issue to date—PIVENS (pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo)—found that pioglitazone was beneficial in improving hepatic histology.¹⁶ However, the well-recognized adverse effects of pioglitazone (eg, upper respiratory tract infection, edema, and hypoglycemia) may temper its utility.

Clinical trials involving newer antidiabetic agents, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) analogues, indicate that such agents improve insulin resistance, steatosis, and inflammation.²¹ However, these drugs are not considered to be routine therapy because of limited data and the lack of long-term benefits.

Bile acid regulatory agents. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), a bile acid with antiapoptotic and cytoprotective properties, is used as a hepatoprotectant in NAFLD. Although early studies showed no significant differences in LFT results between UDCA-treated and untreated groups, recent RCTs indicate that UDCA improves ALT and serum fibrosis.^22,23 The FLINT trial, a recent multicenter RCT involving obeticholic acid, found that UDCA was associated with improvement in histologic outcomes, although long-term benefits and safety—especially with regard to worsening hyperlipidemia—are questionable.²⁴

Pentoxifylline. Researchers have evaluated pentoxifylline, a hepatoprotectant with anti-tumor necrosis factor effect, in the treatment of NAFLD.²⁵ In fact, pooled results from 5 well-designed studies indicate that pentoxifylline significantly reduces ALT and AST and improves steatosis, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis.²⁶ Although these data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large multicenter studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of NASH at this time.

Cholesterol-lowering agents. Statins inhibit hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase in the liver and have anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrogenic properties. They have been used in patients with NAFLD, primarily because of their cardiovascular benefit. Two RCTs with high risk of bias and a small number of participants found statin therapy to be associated with improved serum transaminases and ultrasound findings; however, liver biopsies were not performed in either of these studies.²⁷

While the data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

Lowering cholesterol using an absorption inhibitor, such as ezetimibe, was associated with improvement in liver histology in a single RCT.²⁸ Even though statins are not considered to be a treatment for NAFLD, they can be used to safely lower plasma cholesterol in patients with the disease.

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. Research in animals indicates that activation of the renin-angiotensin system contributes to the pathogenesis of NAFLD, but data on the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with NAFLD are limited, conflicting, and derived largely from retrospective²⁹ and pilot prospective studies.

Based on currently published literature, RAS inhibitors are not considered an NAFLD treatment. However, because cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death in patients with NAFLD, the renal and cardiovascular protection offered by these agents likely lowers mortality in patients with the disease.

Probiotics. The use of probiotics in the treatment of NAFLD is based on the premise that alterations in intestinal microbes and the inflammatory response may improve the disease. Three RCTs involving different formulations of probiotics, synbiotics, or placebo, showed improvement in serum liver markers and insulin resistance, but did not include histologic outcome measures.³⁰ Furthermore, the long-term consequences of altered gut flora are presently unknown. As such, the available evidence does not support the use of probiotics for the treatment of NAFLD.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Clearly, omega-3 fatty acids have beneficial effects on cardiometabolic risk factors and positively impact lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity. In addition, a few studies have reported improvement in non-histologic outcome measures of NAFLD, but 2 high-quality RCTs found no benefit of fish oil-based PUFA on histology.^31,32 Thus, current evidence does not support recommending PUFA supplementation for the treatment of NAFLD.

Chinese herbal medicines. At least 56 trials have looked at 75 different Chinese herbal medicines in varying formulations, dosages, routes of administration, and durations of treatment, using various controlled interventions.³³ No trial reported primary outcomes, such as hepatic-related mortality, morbidity, or health care quality of life. Although a large number of the trials reported some positive effects on various biochemical or radiologic measures, the high risk of bias and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines leave efficacy and safety open to question. As such, no Chinese herbal medicines are regarded as treatment for NAFLD at this time.

Target components of metabolic syndrome

Management of the components of metabolic syndrome remains one of the safest and most effective ways to manage NAFLD. Therefore, screening for and treating T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia are priorities. Although obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not part of metabolic syndrome, the condition frequently coexists with metabolic syndrome because both entities have obesity as a risk factor.

T2DM. Screen all patients with NAFLD for T2DM and vice-versa because, as noted earlier, patients with diabetes have more severe and progressive NAFLD, and a high proportion of patients with NAFLD have T2DM.^5,6 Although research has not shown metformin to improve histology in NASH, metformin is recommended as a first-line agent for the treatment of T2DM because it aids in weight loss and lowers diabetes-related mortality.³⁴

Pioglitazone is considered a second-line agent. Despite its beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity and hepatic histology, there are concerns about the adverse effects of thiazolidinediones. GLP1 analogues, which improve liver enzymes and reduce hepatic steatosis, are considered third-line agents.

Hypertension. Because approximately 70% of patients with NAFLD have hypertension,³⁵ it is imperative to screen patients for the condition. If blood pressure is >140/90 mm Hg, patients should be managed according to hypertension guidelines. ACE inhibitors or ARBs are recommended as first-line therapy, since blocking the renin-angiotensin system potentially reduces hepatic fibrosis,³⁶ and ARBs may lower transaminases and improve insulin sensitivity in NAFLD.

Dyslipidemia. Treatment of dyslipidemia is essential to lowering cardiovascular mortality in patients with NAFLD. Even though elevated transaminases occur with NAFLD, this should not preclude starting therapy to lower triglycerides to <150 mg/dL and total cholesterol to <200 mg/dL.

OSA. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in patients with NAFLD, physicians should have a high index of suspicion and screen this population for sleep disorders. OSA is associated with an increased risk of NAFLD and advanced fibrosis in NASH.³⁷ Treatment of OSA improves quality of life and controls blood pressure in patients with NAFLD, but it’s currently unclear whether targeting sleep disorders can slow the progression of fibrosis in NAFLD.

Concentrate on the complications of cirrhosis

Patients with NASH cirrhosis, like those with cirrhosis of other etiologies, are at risk for complications, including hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, and esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Surveillance to detect these include an annual liver ultrasound, an alpha-fetoprotein test every 6 months, esophagogastroduodenoscopy for varices, and an assessment for liver transplantation. For more on these complications, see, “Cirrhosis complications: Keeping them under control,” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:338-342. NAFLD-associated cirrhosis is the third most frequent indication for liver transplantation in the United States and may become the most frequent indication in the next decade.³⁸

CASE ›  Because the patient’s liver biopsy showed early NASH, we recommended that he aggressively pursue lifestyle modification, including regular physical activity and dietary changes. Additionally, we discussed optimization of glycemic control and continued use of lisinopril for control of hypertension. On follow-up 6 months later, he had lost weight and his BMI was 32 kg/m². In addition, his transaminase levels had improved, but they had not normalized.

We recommended that he continue the same measures, with follow-up every 6 months to ensure compliance with lifestyle modifications and with diabetes and hypertension control.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jaividhya Dasarathy, MD, Metro Health Medical Center, 2500 Metro Health Drive, Cleveland, OH 44109; [email protected].

CASE › A 39-year-old Hispanic man with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and hypertension is referred for evaluation of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) and fatty liver on ultrasound. He is taking metformin and lisinopril, and a patient alcohol screening survey is negative. LFT results reveal the following: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 27 IU/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 43 IU/dL; albumin 4.2 g/dL; gamma glutamyl transferase 22 u/L; alkaline phosphatase 51 IU/L; and total bilirubin 0.3 mg/dL. Lactate dehydrogenase and prothrombin time are normal.

Results of his liver screen are as follows: hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C antibody, antimitochondrial antibody, and anti-smooth muscle antibody are negative, and iron, transferrin saturation, and ceruloplasmin are in normal range. Antinuclear antibody (1:20 dilution) is weakly positive, and alpha-1 antitrypsin (264 mg/dL) and serum ferritin (300 ng/mL) are mildly increased.

The patient undergoes a liver biopsy that shows grade 2 steatosis, grade 1 lobular inflammation, few ballooned hepatocytes, and stage 1 fibrosis. Based on these clinical findings, he is given a diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

NAFLD is the most frequent cause of chronic liver disease both in the United States and globally.¹ In fact, a number of long-term epidemiologic studies report that nearly one-third of the US population has the disease.² The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to cirrhosis. Of patients with NAFLD, 10% to 30% have the more severe form—NASH—and about 10% of those with NASH progress to cirrhosis and other liver-related complications.³

People with NAFLD consume no alcohol, or only a modest amount (ie, weekly intake <140 g in women and <210 g in men). Typically, they are asymptomatic with normal or mildly abnormal LFTs discovered as part of a preventive health screening. In patients with simple hepatic steatosis alone, serum ALT levels are higher than serum AST levels. (In contrast, patients with alcoholic liver injury and NASH with progressive fibrosis have higher serum AST than ALT levels.) A serum hepatitis panel and liver screen are negative for other explanations of chronic liver disease.

NAFLD is strongly associated with obesity, insulin resistance/T2DM, and hyperlipidemia, all of which are components of metabolic syndrome. Obesity, particularly central obesity, is highly predictive of hepatic steatosis and disease progression.⁴ T2DM occurs 5 to 9 times more frequently in people with NAFLD than in the general population,⁵ and, conversely, nearly 66% of patients with T2DM have NAFLD.^6,7 Furthermore, nearly 70% of patients with T2DM develop fatty liver and its consequences, including NASH, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.^5,7

4 therapeutic strategies. Based on our current understanding of the pathogenesis of NAFLD, there are 4 main therapeutic avenues: lifestyle modification, liver-directed pharmacotherapy, management of metabolic syndrome, and surveillance of the complications of cirrhosis. The review that follows explores the evidence to date for each.

Take steps to reduce weight and increase physical activity

The primary objective with NAFLD is to right the imbalance between calorie intake and utilization so as to reverse the obesity and insulin resistance underlying the disease.

Target carbohydrates. Current data clearly suggest that energy intake is significantly higher in patients with NAFLD than in those without the disease.⁸ Thus, reducing dietary carbohydrate and overall energy intake is beneficial to preventing and halting the progression of liver damage. Increased intake of high fructose corn syrup may be at least partially to blame; research has linked the substance to the occurrence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and NAFLD.⁹

The optimal diet to treat NAFLD is not known because of the difficulties inherent to performing well-designed dietary intervention trials and ensuring long-term compliance. At least one study reported that a Mediterranean diet helped reduce hepatic steatosis and improve insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic individuals.¹⁰ Generally, patients should avoid saturated fats, simple carbohydrates, and sweetened drinks, and they should be instructed to restrict calories to cause weight loss of about .5 kg to 1 kg per week until the target weight is achieved.¹¹

Current observational studies indicate that prudent calorie restriction combined with increased physical activity is the best strategy for achieving and sustaining optimum body weight; severe calorie restriction is likely to cause skeletal muscle loss that can aggravate NAFLD.

Encourage exercise. Aerobic exercise improves skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity—the primary underlying mechanism that causes NAFLD.¹² Although the optimum duration and intensity of exercise is not known, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that moderately intense training, high-intensity training, and/or resistance training improved hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance, but an effect on ALT was inconsistent.¹³ (None of these studies included histology as an outcome measure.)

Given the multitude of benefits of aerobic exercise, there is no question that patients with NAFLD should try to increase their physical activity and incorporate exercise into their daily routine.

Hold off on pharmacologic weight loss. Orlistat, an enteric lipase inhibitor, causes malabsorption of dietary fat, which leads to weight loss. Although one study demonstrated that orlistat improves ALT and steatosis in patients with NAFLD, a subsequent RCT concluded that orlistat with caloric restriction and vitamin E (800 IU/d) did not enhance weight loss over caloric restriction and vitamin E alone.¹⁴ Additionally, in patients with weight loss >9% of body weight, histologic improvement occurred independent of orlistat.¹⁴ Therefore, orlistat is not currently recommended for weight loss in patients with NAFLD.

Keep bariatric surgery on your radar. Bariatric-metabolic surgery provides the most reliable method for achieving sustained weight loss in morbidly obese individuals with NAFLD. Commonly used surgical procedures are associated with reduced steatosis and lobular inflammatory changes, but reports are conflicting regarding fibrosis.¹⁵

The majority of published data indicate that bariatric surgery improves the histologic and metabolic changes associated with NAFLD and has potential as a treatment option for patients with morbid obesity and NAFLD. However, the timing and type of surgery that is most effective, and whether bariatric surgery can cure the disease, remain unanswered questions. Long-term follow-up and RCTs are needed to address these issues. As a result, no definitive recommendations regarding bariatric surgery as a treatment for NAFLD can be made at this time.¹⁵

Liver-directed pharmacotherapy: Evidence is lacking for many agents

Lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of therapy for NAFLD because of its efficacy and lack of adverse effects. But low compliance rates often make pharmacotherapy necessary to reduce the health burden related to NAFLD. Despite the success rate of pharmacologic agents that focus on insulin resistance and lipid metabolism and that have antioxidant properties, the long-term safety and efficacy of many of these agents is largely unknown. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved any pharmacologic agents specifically for the treatment of NAFLD. Here’s what we know:

Vitamin E. Five RCTs have evaluated the antioxidant vitamin E in patients with NASH. The best study published to date found that 96 weeks of therapy with 800 IU/d vitamin E was associated with a 42% improvement in hepatic histology, compared with 19% improvement in the placebo group.¹⁶ Vitamin E was also associated with improved serum ALT.

Although vitamin E seems to be a promising agent for the treatment of NASH, concerns exist about its long-term safety because of an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁷ In addition, because the optimal dose and duration of treatment is unknown and because studies have not evaluated the supplement in patients who have diabetes and NASH, vitamin E is not currently considered to be a standard therapy for NASH.

Insulin sensitizers. Because insulin resistance is believed to be the underlying mechanism for the development and progression of NAFLD, a compelling rationale exists for the use of insulin sensitizers in the management of the disease. Metformin, an activator of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, and the thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are the most extensively studied agents in clinical trials. A number of studies looking at the effects of metformin on NAFLD found that liver function, steatosis, and insulin sensitivity improved;¹⁸ however, a recent meta-analysis found that metformin failed to improve liver histology.¹⁹

Similarly, although clinical trials have shown that thiazolidinediones improve liver enzymes, inflammatory markers, and hepatic steatosis, questions surround their long-term safety.²⁰ The largest placebo-controlled trial on this issue to date—PIVENS (pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo)—found that pioglitazone was beneficial in improving hepatic histology.¹⁶ However, the well-recognized adverse effects of pioglitazone (eg, upper respiratory tract infection, edema, and hypoglycemia) may temper its utility.

Clinical trials involving newer antidiabetic agents, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) analogues, indicate that such agents improve insulin resistance, steatosis, and inflammation.²¹ However, these drugs are not considered to be routine therapy because of limited data and the lack of long-term benefits.

Bile acid regulatory agents. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), a bile acid with antiapoptotic and cytoprotective properties, is used as a hepatoprotectant in NAFLD. Although early studies showed no significant differences in LFT results between UDCA-treated and untreated groups, recent RCTs indicate that UDCA improves ALT and serum fibrosis.^22,23 The FLINT trial, a recent multicenter RCT involving obeticholic acid, found that UDCA was associated with improvement in histologic outcomes, although long-term benefits and safety—especially with regard to worsening hyperlipidemia—are questionable.²⁴

Pentoxifylline. Researchers have evaluated pentoxifylline, a hepatoprotectant with anti-tumor necrosis factor effect, in the treatment of NAFLD.²⁵ In fact, pooled results from 5 well-designed studies indicate that pentoxifylline significantly reduces ALT and AST and improves steatosis, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis.²⁶ Although these data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large multicenter studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of NASH at this time.

Cholesterol-lowering agents. Statins inhibit hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase in the liver and have anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrogenic properties. They have been used in patients with NAFLD, primarily because of their cardiovascular benefit. Two RCTs with high risk of bias and a small number of participants found statin therapy to be associated with improved serum transaminases and ultrasound findings; however, liver biopsies were not performed in either of these studies.²⁷

While the data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

Lowering cholesterol using an absorption inhibitor, such as ezetimibe, was associated with improvement in liver histology in a single RCT.²⁸ Even though statins are not considered to be a treatment for NAFLD, they can be used to safely lower plasma cholesterol in patients with the disease.

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. Research in animals indicates that activation of the renin-angiotensin system contributes to the pathogenesis of NAFLD, but data on the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with NAFLD are limited, conflicting, and derived largely from retrospective²⁹ and pilot prospective studies.

Based on currently published literature, RAS inhibitors are not considered an NAFLD treatment. However, because cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death in patients with NAFLD, the renal and cardiovascular protection offered by these agents likely lowers mortality in patients with the disease.

Probiotics. The use of probiotics in the treatment of NAFLD is based on the premise that alterations in intestinal microbes and the inflammatory response may improve the disease. Three RCTs involving different formulations of probiotics, synbiotics, or placebo, showed improvement in serum liver markers and insulin resistance, but did not include histologic outcome measures.³⁰ Furthermore, the long-term consequences of altered gut flora are presently unknown. As such, the available evidence does not support the use of probiotics for the treatment of NAFLD.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Clearly, omega-3 fatty acids have beneficial effects on cardiometabolic risk factors and positively impact lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity. In addition, a few studies have reported improvement in non-histologic outcome measures of NAFLD, but 2 high-quality RCTs found no benefit of fish oil-based PUFA on histology.^31,32 Thus, current evidence does not support recommending PUFA supplementation for the treatment of NAFLD.

Chinese herbal medicines. At least 56 trials have looked at 75 different Chinese herbal medicines in varying formulations, dosages, routes of administration, and durations of treatment, using various controlled interventions.³³ No trial reported primary outcomes, such as hepatic-related mortality, morbidity, or health care quality of life. Although a large number of the trials reported some positive effects on various biochemical or radiologic measures, the high risk of bias and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines leave efficacy and safety open to question. As such, no Chinese herbal medicines are regarded as treatment for NAFLD at this time.

Target components of metabolic syndrome

Management of the components of metabolic syndrome remains one of the safest and most effective ways to manage NAFLD. Therefore, screening for and treating T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia are priorities. Although obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not part of metabolic syndrome, the condition frequently coexists with metabolic syndrome because both entities have obesity as a risk factor.

T2DM. Screen all patients with NAFLD for T2DM and vice-versa because, as noted earlier, patients with diabetes have more severe and progressive NAFLD, and a high proportion of patients with NAFLD have T2DM.^5,6 Although research has not shown metformin to improve histology in NASH, metformin is recommended as a first-line agent for the treatment of T2DM because it aids in weight loss and lowers diabetes-related mortality.³⁴

Pioglitazone is considered a second-line agent. Despite its beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity and hepatic histology, there are concerns about the adverse effects of thiazolidinediones. GLP1 analogues, which improve liver enzymes and reduce hepatic steatosis, are considered third-line agents.

Hypertension. Because approximately 70% of patients with NAFLD have hypertension,³⁵ it is imperative to screen patients for the condition. If blood pressure is >140/90 mm Hg, patients should be managed according to hypertension guidelines. ACE inhibitors or ARBs are recommended as first-line therapy, since blocking the renin-angiotensin system potentially reduces hepatic fibrosis,³⁶ and ARBs may lower transaminases and improve insulin sensitivity in NAFLD.

Dyslipidemia. Treatment of dyslipidemia is essential to lowering cardiovascular mortality in patients with NAFLD. Even though elevated transaminases occur with NAFLD, this should not preclude starting therapy to lower triglycerides to <150 mg/dL and total cholesterol to <200 mg/dL.

OSA. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in patients with NAFLD, physicians should have a high index of suspicion and screen this population for sleep disorders. OSA is associated with an increased risk of NAFLD and advanced fibrosis in NASH.³⁷ Treatment of OSA improves quality of life and controls blood pressure in patients with NAFLD, but it’s currently unclear whether targeting sleep disorders can slow the progression of fibrosis in NAFLD.

Concentrate on the complications of cirrhosis

Patients with NASH cirrhosis, like those with cirrhosis of other etiologies, are at risk for complications, including hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, and esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Surveillance to detect these include an annual liver ultrasound, an alpha-fetoprotein test every 6 months, esophagogastroduodenoscopy for varices, and an assessment for liver transplantation. For more on these complications, see, “Cirrhosis complications: Keeping them under control,” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:338-342. NAFLD-associated cirrhosis is the third most frequent indication for liver transplantation in the United States and may become the most frequent indication in the next decade.³⁸

CASE ›  Because the patient’s liver biopsy showed early NASH, we recommended that he aggressively pursue lifestyle modification, including regular physical activity and dietary changes. Additionally, we discussed optimization of glycemic control and continued use of lisinopril for control of hypertension. On follow-up 6 months later, he had lost weight and his BMI was 32 kg/m². In addition, his transaminase levels had improved, but they had not normalized.

We recommended that he continue the same measures, with follow-up every 6 months to ensure compliance with lifestyle modifications and with diabetes and hypertension control.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jaividhya Dasarathy, MD, Metro Health Medical Center, 2500 Metro Health Drive, Cleveland, OH 44109; [email protected].

CASE › A 39-year-old Hispanic man with a body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m², type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and hypertension is referred for evaluation of abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) and fatty liver on ultrasound. He is taking metformin and lisinopril, and a patient alcohol screening survey is negative. LFT results reveal the following: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 27 IU/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 43 IU/dL; albumin 4.2 g/dL; gamma glutamyl transferase 22 u/L; alkaline phosphatase 51 IU/L; and total bilirubin 0.3 mg/dL. Lactate dehydrogenase and prothrombin time are normal.

Results of his liver screen are as follows: hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C antibody, antimitochondrial antibody, and anti-smooth muscle antibody are negative, and iron, transferrin saturation, and ceruloplasmin are in normal range. Antinuclear antibody (1:20 dilution) is weakly positive, and alpha-1 antitrypsin (264 mg/dL) and serum ferritin (300 ng/mL) are mildly increased.

The patient undergoes a liver biopsy that shows grade 2 steatosis, grade 1 lobular inflammation, few ballooned hepatocytes, and stage 1 fibrosis. Based on these clinical findings, he is given a diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

NAFLD is the most frequent cause of chronic liver disease both in the United States and globally.¹ In fact, a number of long-term epidemiologic studies report that nearly one-third of the US population has the disease.² The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) to cirrhosis. Of patients with NAFLD, 10% to 30% have the more severe form—NASH—and about 10% of those with NASH progress to cirrhosis and other liver-related complications.³

People with NAFLD consume no alcohol, or only a modest amount (ie, weekly intake <140 g in women and <210 g in men). Typically, they are asymptomatic with normal or mildly abnormal LFTs discovered as part of a preventive health screening. In patients with simple hepatic steatosis alone, serum ALT levels are higher than serum AST levels. (In contrast, patients with alcoholic liver injury and NASH with progressive fibrosis have higher serum AST than ALT levels.) A serum hepatitis panel and liver screen are negative for other explanations of chronic liver disease.

NAFLD is strongly associated with obesity, insulin resistance/T2DM, and hyperlipidemia, all of which are components of metabolic syndrome. Obesity, particularly central obesity, is highly predictive of hepatic steatosis and disease progression.⁴ T2DM occurs 5 to 9 times more frequently in people with NAFLD than in the general population,⁵ and, conversely, nearly 66% of patients with T2DM have NAFLD.^6,7 Furthermore, nearly 70% of patients with T2DM develop fatty liver and its consequences, including NASH, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma.^5,7

4 therapeutic strategies. Based on our current understanding of the pathogenesis of NAFLD, there are 4 main therapeutic avenues: lifestyle modification, liver-directed pharmacotherapy, management of metabolic syndrome, and surveillance of the complications of cirrhosis. The review that follows explores the evidence to date for each.

Take steps to reduce weight and increase physical activity

The primary objective with NAFLD is to right the imbalance between calorie intake and utilization so as to reverse the obesity and insulin resistance underlying the disease.

Target carbohydrates. Current data clearly suggest that energy intake is significantly higher in patients with NAFLD than in those without the disease.⁸ Thus, reducing dietary carbohydrate and overall energy intake is beneficial to preventing and halting the progression of liver damage. Increased intake of high fructose corn syrup may be at least partially to blame; research has linked the substance to the occurrence of obesity, metabolic syndrome, and NAFLD.⁹

The optimal diet to treat NAFLD is not known because of the difficulties inherent to performing well-designed dietary intervention trials and ensuring long-term compliance. At least one study reported that a Mediterranean diet helped reduce hepatic steatosis and improve insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic individuals.¹⁰ Generally, patients should avoid saturated fats, simple carbohydrates, and sweetened drinks, and they should be instructed to restrict calories to cause weight loss of about .5 kg to 1 kg per week until the target weight is achieved.¹¹

Current observational studies indicate that prudent calorie restriction combined with increased physical activity is the best strategy for achieving and sustaining optimum body weight; severe calorie restriction is likely to cause skeletal muscle loss that can aggravate NAFLD.

Encourage exercise. Aerobic exercise improves skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity—the primary underlying mechanism that causes NAFLD.¹² Although the optimum duration and intensity of exercise is not known, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that moderately intense training, high-intensity training, and/or resistance training improved hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance, but an effect on ALT was inconsistent.¹³ (None of these studies included histology as an outcome measure.)

Given the multitude of benefits of aerobic exercise, there is no question that patients with NAFLD should try to increase their physical activity and incorporate exercise into their daily routine.

Hold off on pharmacologic weight loss. Orlistat, an enteric lipase inhibitor, causes malabsorption of dietary fat, which leads to weight loss. Although one study demonstrated that orlistat improves ALT and steatosis in patients with NAFLD, a subsequent RCT concluded that orlistat with caloric restriction and vitamin E (800 IU/d) did not enhance weight loss over caloric restriction and vitamin E alone.¹⁴ Additionally, in patients with weight loss >9% of body weight, histologic improvement occurred independent of orlistat.¹⁴ Therefore, orlistat is not currently recommended for weight loss in patients with NAFLD.

Keep bariatric surgery on your radar. Bariatric-metabolic surgery provides the most reliable method for achieving sustained weight loss in morbidly obese individuals with NAFLD. Commonly used surgical procedures are associated with reduced steatosis and lobular inflammatory changes, but reports are conflicting regarding fibrosis.¹⁵

The majority of published data indicate that bariatric surgery improves the histologic and metabolic changes associated with NAFLD and has potential as a treatment option for patients with morbid obesity and NAFLD. However, the timing and type of surgery that is most effective, and whether bariatric surgery can cure the disease, remain unanswered questions. Long-term follow-up and RCTs are needed to address these issues. As a result, no definitive recommendations regarding bariatric surgery as a treatment for NAFLD can be made at this time.¹⁵

Liver-directed pharmacotherapy: Evidence is lacking for many agents

Lifestyle modification remains the mainstay of therapy for NAFLD because of its efficacy and lack of adverse effects. But low compliance rates often make pharmacotherapy necessary to reduce the health burden related to NAFLD. Despite the success rate of pharmacologic agents that focus on insulin resistance and lipid metabolism and that have antioxidant properties, the long-term safety and efficacy of many of these agents is largely unknown. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved any pharmacologic agents specifically for the treatment of NAFLD. Here’s what we know:

Vitamin E. Five RCTs have evaluated the antioxidant vitamin E in patients with NASH. The best study published to date found that 96 weeks of therapy with 800 IU/d vitamin E was associated with a 42% improvement in hepatic histology, compared with 19% improvement in the placebo group.¹⁶ Vitamin E was also associated with improved serum ALT.

Although vitamin E seems to be a promising agent for the treatment of NASH, concerns exist about its long-term safety because of an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hemorrhagic stroke.¹⁷ In addition, because the optimal dose and duration of treatment is unknown and because studies have not evaluated the supplement in patients who have diabetes and NASH, vitamin E is not currently considered to be a standard therapy for NASH.

Insulin sensitizers. Because insulin resistance is believed to be the underlying mechanism for the development and progression of NAFLD, a compelling rationale exists for the use of insulin sensitizers in the management of the disease. Metformin, an activator of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, and the thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are the most extensively studied agents in clinical trials. A number of studies looking at the effects of metformin on NAFLD found that liver function, steatosis, and insulin sensitivity improved;¹⁸ however, a recent meta-analysis found that metformin failed to improve liver histology.¹⁹

Similarly, although clinical trials have shown that thiazolidinediones improve liver enzymes, inflammatory markers, and hepatic steatosis, questions surround their long-term safety.²⁰ The largest placebo-controlled trial on this issue to date—PIVENS (pioglitazone vs vitamin E vs placebo)—found that pioglitazone was beneficial in improving hepatic histology.¹⁶ However, the well-recognized adverse effects of pioglitazone (eg, upper respiratory tract infection, edema, and hypoglycemia) may temper its utility.

Clinical trials involving newer antidiabetic agents, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) analogues, indicate that such agents improve insulin resistance, steatosis, and inflammation.²¹ However, these drugs are not considered to be routine therapy because of limited data and the lack of long-term benefits.

Bile acid regulatory agents. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), a bile acid with antiapoptotic and cytoprotective properties, is used as a hepatoprotectant in NAFLD. Although early studies showed no significant differences in LFT results between UDCA-treated and untreated groups, recent RCTs indicate that UDCA improves ALT and serum fibrosis.^22,23 The FLINT trial, a recent multicenter RCT involving obeticholic acid, found that UDCA was associated with improvement in histologic outcomes, although long-term benefits and safety—especially with regard to worsening hyperlipidemia—are questionable.²⁴

Pentoxifylline. Researchers have evaluated pentoxifylline, a hepatoprotectant with anti-tumor necrosis factor effect, in the treatment of NAFLD.²⁵ In fact, pooled results from 5 well-designed studies indicate that pentoxifylline significantly reduces ALT and AST and improves steatosis, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis.²⁶ Although these data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large multicenter studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of NASH at this time.

Cholesterol-lowering agents. Statins inhibit hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase in the liver and have anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrogenic properties. They have been used in patients with NAFLD, primarily because of their cardiovascular benefit. Two RCTs with high risk of bias and a small number of participants found statin therapy to be associated with improved serum transaminases and ultrasound findings; however, liver biopsies were not performed in either of these studies.²⁷

While the data suggest that pentoxifylline holds promise as a therapeutic option, the lack of large studies and FDA approval temper its utility in the management of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

Lowering cholesterol using an absorption inhibitor, such as ezetimibe, was associated with improvement in liver histology in a single RCT.²⁸ Even though statins are not considered to be a treatment for NAFLD, they can be used to safely lower plasma cholesterol in patients with the disease.

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. Research in animals indicates that activation of the renin-angiotensin system contributes to the pathogenesis of NAFLD, but data on the benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with NAFLD are limited, conflicting, and derived largely from retrospective²⁹ and pilot prospective studies.

Based on currently published literature, RAS inhibitors are not considered an NAFLD treatment. However, because cardiovascular disease is a major cause of death in patients with NAFLD, the renal and cardiovascular protection offered by these agents likely lowers mortality in patients with the disease.

Probiotics. The use of probiotics in the treatment of NAFLD is based on the premise that alterations in intestinal microbes and the inflammatory response may improve the disease. Three RCTs involving different formulations of probiotics, synbiotics, or placebo, showed improvement in serum liver markers and insulin resistance, but did not include histologic outcome measures.³⁰ Furthermore, the long-term consequences of altered gut flora are presently unknown. As such, the available evidence does not support the use of probiotics for the treatment of NAFLD.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Clearly, omega-3 fatty acids have beneficial effects on cardiometabolic risk factors and positively impact lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity. In addition, a few studies have reported improvement in non-histologic outcome measures of NAFLD, but 2 high-quality RCTs found no benefit of fish oil-based PUFA on histology.^31,32 Thus, current evidence does not support recommending PUFA supplementation for the treatment of NAFLD.

Chinese herbal medicines. At least 56 trials have looked at 75 different Chinese herbal medicines in varying formulations, dosages, routes of administration, and durations of treatment, using various controlled interventions.³³ No trial reported primary outcomes, such as hepatic-related mortality, morbidity, or health care quality of life. Although a large number of the trials reported some positive effects on various biochemical or radiologic measures, the high risk of bias and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines leave efficacy and safety open to question. As such, no Chinese herbal medicines are regarded as treatment for NAFLD at this time.

Target components of metabolic syndrome

Management of the components of metabolic syndrome remains one of the safest and most effective ways to manage NAFLD. Therefore, screening for and treating T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia are priorities. Although obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is not part of metabolic syndrome, the condition frequently coexists with metabolic syndrome because both entities have obesity as a risk factor.

T2DM. Screen all patients with NAFLD for T2DM and vice-versa because, as noted earlier, patients with diabetes have more severe and progressive NAFLD, and a high proportion of patients with NAFLD have T2DM.^5,6 Although research has not shown metformin to improve histology in NASH, metformin is recommended as a first-line agent for the treatment of T2DM because it aids in weight loss and lowers diabetes-related mortality.³⁴

Pioglitazone is considered a second-line agent. Despite its beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity and hepatic histology, there are concerns about the adverse effects of thiazolidinediones. GLP1 analogues, which improve liver enzymes and reduce hepatic steatosis, are considered third-line agents.

Hypertension. Because approximately 70% of patients with NAFLD have hypertension,³⁵ it is imperative to screen patients for the condition. If blood pressure is >140/90 mm Hg, patients should be managed according to hypertension guidelines. ACE inhibitors or ARBs are recommended as first-line therapy, since blocking the renin-angiotensin system potentially reduces hepatic fibrosis,³⁶ and ARBs may lower transaminases and improve insulin sensitivity in NAFLD.

Dyslipidemia. Treatment of dyslipidemia is essential to lowering cardiovascular mortality in patients with NAFLD. Even though elevated transaminases occur with NAFLD, this should not preclude starting therapy to lower triglycerides to <150 mg/dL and total cholesterol to <200 mg/dL.

OSA. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in patients with NAFLD, physicians should have a high index of suspicion and screen this population for sleep disorders. OSA is associated with an increased risk of NAFLD and advanced fibrosis in NASH.³⁷ Treatment of OSA improves quality of life and controls blood pressure in patients with NAFLD, but it’s currently unclear whether targeting sleep disorders can slow the progression of fibrosis in NAFLD.

Concentrate on the complications of cirrhosis

Patients with NASH cirrhosis, like those with cirrhosis of other etiologies, are at risk for complications, including hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, hepatorenal syndrome, and esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Surveillance to detect these include an annual liver ultrasound, an alpha-fetoprotein test every 6 months, esophagogastroduodenoscopy for varices, and an assessment for liver transplantation. For more on these complications, see, “Cirrhosis complications: Keeping them under control,” J Fam Pract. 2015;64:338-342. NAFLD-associated cirrhosis is the third most frequent indication for liver transplantation in the United States and may become the most frequent indication in the next decade.³⁸

CASE ›  Because the patient’s liver biopsy showed early NASH, we recommended that he aggressively pursue lifestyle modification, including regular physical activity and dietary changes. Additionally, we discussed optimization of glycemic control and continued use of lisinopril for control of hypertension. On follow-up 6 months later, he had lost weight and his BMI was 32 kg/m². In addition, his transaminase levels had improved, but they had not normalized.

We recommended that he continue the same measures, with follow-up every 6 months to ensure compliance with lifestyle modifications and with diabetes and hypertension control.

CORRESPONDENCE
Jaividhya Dasarathy, MD, Metro Health Medical Center, 2500 Metro Health Drive, Cleveland, OH 44109; [email protected].

Hormonal contraceptives don’t appear to increase the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism among women taking anticoagulants, according to a report published in Blood.

Clinicians are often reluctant to prescribe hormonal contraceptives for women who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) because the drugs are known to raise the risk of VTE and are considered to be contraindicated in either active or previous VTE. But effective contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age who are taking anticoagulants, because these drugs cross the placenta and could cause fetal bleeding and other adverse events, wrote Dr. Ida Martinelli of the A. Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and her associates (Blood 2016;127[11]:1417-25).

©ThinkStockPhotos.com

Adding further to the confusion, World Health Organization guidelines state that estrogen-containing contraceptives confer “an unacceptable health risk” during anticoagulant therapy for VTE, but the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends that women diagnosed with VTE continue oral contraceptive and estrogen-replacement hormonal therapy until they discontinue anticoagulant therapy “because any prothrombotic effect of hormonal therapy is likely to be suppressed by therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation,” the investigators noted.

In the current study, the investigators performed a secondary analysis of data accrued in two large trials evaluating rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonists, which involved 1,888 women younger than age 60 (mean age, 41 years) who were being treated for acute deep vein thrombosis or acute pulmonary embolism. A total of 402 of these women used hormonal therapy during the 4-year studies.

There were 7 VTE recurrences during hormonal contraceptive use and 38 without hormonal contraceptive use. The incidence densities were 3.7% per year with hormonal therapy and 4.7% per year without it, for a hazard ratio of 0.56.

This indicates that hormonal contraceptive use did not make a clinically important difference in the rate of VTE recurrence. Moreover, these findings were consistent regardless of whether the contraceptives contained estrogen (incidence density, 3.7% per year) or progestin only (incidence density, 3.8% per year), and remained consistent in sensitivity analyses.

“These results challenge the WHO guidelines and instead support the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations,” the investigators wrote.

“Our finding of similar risks of recurrent VTE for women who did or did not receive hormonal therapy, whether progestin-only or estrogen-containing therapy, supports a treatment selection that incorporates patient preference, including the choice of estrogen-containing contraception,” they added.

The study was funded in part by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, which also provided editorial assistance. Dr. Martinelli reported having no relevant financial disclosures; her associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

Hormonal contraceptives don’t appear to increase the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism among women taking anticoagulants, according to a report published in Blood.

Clinicians are often reluctant to prescribe hormonal contraceptives for women who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) because the drugs are known to raise the risk of VTE and are considered to be contraindicated in either active or previous VTE. But effective contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age who are taking anticoagulants, because these drugs cross the placenta and could cause fetal bleeding and other adverse events, wrote Dr. Ida Martinelli of the A. Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and her associates (Blood 2016;127[11]:1417-25).

©ThinkStockPhotos.com

Adding further to the confusion, World Health Organization guidelines state that estrogen-containing contraceptives confer “an unacceptable health risk” during anticoagulant therapy for VTE, but the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends that women diagnosed with VTE continue oral contraceptive and estrogen-replacement hormonal therapy until they discontinue anticoagulant therapy “because any prothrombotic effect of hormonal therapy is likely to be suppressed by therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation,” the investigators noted.

In the current study, the investigators performed a secondary analysis of data accrued in two large trials evaluating rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonists, which involved 1,888 women younger than age 60 (mean age, 41 years) who were being treated for acute deep vein thrombosis or acute pulmonary embolism. A total of 402 of these women used hormonal therapy during the 4-year studies.

There were 7 VTE recurrences during hormonal contraceptive use and 38 without hormonal contraceptive use. The incidence densities were 3.7% per year with hormonal therapy and 4.7% per year without it, for a hazard ratio of 0.56.

This indicates that hormonal contraceptive use did not make a clinically important difference in the rate of VTE recurrence. Moreover, these findings were consistent regardless of whether the contraceptives contained estrogen (incidence density, 3.7% per year) or progestin only (incidence density, 3.8% per year), and remained consistent in sensitivity analyses.

“These results challenge the WHO guidelines and instead support the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations,” the investigators wrote.

“Our finding of similar risks of recurrent VTE for women who did or did not receive hormonal therapy, whether progestin-only or estrogen-containing therapy, supports a treatment selection that incorporates patient preference, including the choice of estrogen-containing contraception,” they added.

The study was funded in part by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, which also provided editorial assistance. Dr. Martinelli reported having no relevant financial disclosures; her associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

Hormonal contraceptives don’t appear to increase the risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism among women taking anticoagulants, according to a report published in Blood.

Clinicians are often reluctant to prescribe hormonal contraceptives for women who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) because the drugs are known to raise the risk of VTE and are considered to be contraindicated in either active or previous VTE. But effective contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age who are taking anticoagulants, because these drugs cross the placenta and could cause fetal bleeding and other adverse events, wrote Dr. Ida Martinelli of the A. Bianchi Bonomi Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, and her associates (Blood 2016;127[11]:1417-25).

©ThinkStockPhotos.com

Adding further to the confusion, World Health Organization guidelines state that estrogen-containing contraceptives confer “an unacceptable health risk” during anticoagulant therapy for VTE, but the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommends that women diagnosed with VTE continue oral contraceptive and estrogen-replacement hormonal therapy until they discontinue anticoagulant therapy “because any prothrombotic effect of hormonal therapy is likely to be suppressed by therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation,” the investigators noted.

In the current study, the investigators performed a secondary analysis of data accrued in two large trials evaluating rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonists, which involved 1,888 women younger than age 60 (mean age, 41 years) who were being treated for acute deep vein thrombosis or acute pulmonary embolism. A total of 402 of these women used hormonal therapy during the 4-year studies.

There were 7 VTE recurrences during hormonal contraceptive use and 38 without hormonal contraceptive use. The incidence densities were 3.7% per year with hormonal therapy and 4.7% per year without it, for a hazard ratio of 0.56.

This indicates that hormonal contraceptive use did not make a clinically important difference in the rate of VTE recurrence. Moreover, these findings were consistent regardless of whether the contraceptives contained estrogen (incidence density, 3.7% per year) or progestin only (incidence density, 3.8% per year), and remained consistent in sensitivity analyses.

“These results challenge the WHO guidelines and instead support the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommendations,” the investigators wrote.

“Our finding of similar risks of recurrent VTE for women who did or did not receive hormonal therapy, whether progestin-only or estrogen-containing therapy, supports a treatment selection that incorporates patient preference, including the choice of estrogen-containing contraception,” they added.

The study was funded in part by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, which also provided editorial assistance. Dr. Martinelli reported having no relevant financial disclosures; her associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

CASE From soft-spoken to manic
Mr. K, age 36, an Asian male with no psychiatric history, arrives at the outpatient psychiatry clinic accompanied by his wife, after being referred from the emergency room the night before. He reports racing thoughts, euphoric mood, increased speech, hypergraphia, elevated self-esteem, decreased need for sleep, distractibility, and increased goal-directed activity. Notably, Mr. K states that he likes how he is feeling.

Mr. K’s wife says that his condition is a clear change from his baseline demeanor: soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

Mr. K reports that his symptoms started approximately 10 days earlier, after he returned from a cruise with his wife. During the cruise, he used a scopolamine patch to prevent motion sickness. Mr. K and his wife say that they believe that the scopolamine patch caused his symptoms.

Can scopolamine cause mania?
   a) No
   b) Yes; this is well-documented in the literature
   c) It is theoretically possible because of scopolamine’s antidepressant and central anticholinergic effects

TREATMENT Lithium, close follow up
Mr. K has no history of psychiatric illness or substance use and no recent use of psycho­active substances—other than scopolamine—that could trigger a manic episode. His family history is significant for a younger brother who had a single manic episode at age 12 and a suicide attempt as a young adult.

Mr. K works full-time on rotating shifts—including some overnight shifts—as a manufacturing supervisor at a biotechnology company. He has been unable to work since returning from the cruise because of his psychiatric symptoms.

Mr. K is started on sustained-release (SR) lithium, 900 mg/d. In addition, the psychiatrist advises Mr. K to continue taking clonazepam, 0.5 to 1 mg as needed, which the emergency medicine physician prescribed, for insomnia. Mr. K is referred to a psychiatric intensive outpatient program (IOP), 3 days a week for 2 weeks, and is advised to stay home from work until symptoms stabilize.

Mr. K follows up closely with the psychiatrist in the clinic, every 1 to 2 weeks for the first month, as well as by several telephone and e-mail contacts. Lithium SR is titrated to 1,200 mg/d, to a therapeutic serum level of 1.1 mEq/L. Clonazepam is switched to quetiapine, 25 to 50 mg as needed, to address ongoing insomnia and to reduce the risk of dependency on clonazepam.

Mr. K’s mania gradually abates. He finishes the IOP and returns to work 3 weeks after his initial presentation. At an office visit, Mr. K’s wife gives the psychiatrist 2 scientific articles documenting the antidepressant effect of scopolamine.^1,2 Mr. K and his wife both continue to believe that Mr. K’s manic episode was triggered by the scopolamine patch he used while on the cruise. They think this is important because Mr. K believes he would not have developed mania otherwise, and he does not want to take a mood stabilizer for the rest of his life.

The author’s observations
There are several proposed mechanisms for scopolamine’s antidepressant effect (Table 1).^3-9 Scopolamine blocks central muscarinic cholinergic receptors, which reduces production of glutamate receptors and leads to reduced glutamate transmission and neurotoxicity.^3,4 Scopolamine—similar to ketamine—could enhance synaptogenesis and synaptic signaling.^5,6 Also, by blocking muscarinic autoreceptors, scopolamine results in an acute upregulation of acetylcholine release, which, in turn, influences the nicotinic, dopamine, serotonin, and neuropeptide Y systems. This action could contribute to anti-inflammatory effects, all of which can benefit mood.^7-9 These antidepressant mechanisms also could explain why, theoretically, scopolamine could precipitate mania in a person predisposed to mental illness.

Proposed by Janowsky et al¹⁰ in 1972, the cholinergic−adrenergic balance hypothesis of affective disorders suggests that depression represents an excess of central cholinergic tone over adrenergic tone, and that mania represents the opposite imbalance. Several lines of evidence in the literature support this theory. For example, depressed patients have been found to have hypersensitive central cholinergic receptors.^11,12 Also, central cholinesterase inhibition has been shown to affect pituitary hormone and epinephrine levels via central muscarinic receptors.¹³ In addition, scopolamine has been shown to attenuate these effects via the central anti-muscarinic mechanism.¹⁴

Rapid antidepressant therapy. Scopolamine is being studied as a rapid antidepressant treatment, although it usually is administered via IV infusion, rather than patch form, in trials.^15-17 IV ketamine is another therapy being investigated for rapid treatment of depression, which might have downstream mechanisms of action related to scopolamine.^5,18 Electroconvulsive therapy is a well-known for its quick antidepressant effect, which could involve synaptogenesis or effects on the neuroendocrine system.¹⁹ Sleep deprivation also can produce a rapid antidepressant effect²⁰ (Table 2^{1,2,5,6,15,16,18-20}).

Mr. K is prone to motion sickness, and asks if he can take over-the-counter dimenhydrinate tablets for long car rides. He reports that dimenhydrinate has worked well for him in the past without triggering manic episodes, and he did not anticipate needing to take it very often.

What would you tell Mr. K about dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides?
   a) Mr. K should not take dimenhydrinate to prevent motion sickness because he experienced a manic episode triggered by a scopolamine patch
   b) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate as much as he wants to prevent motion sickness because it poses no risk of mania
   c) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate with caution and sparingly on a trial basis, as long as he is taking his mood stabilizer

FOLLOW UP Cautious use
The psychiatrist advised Mr. K to take dimenhydrinate cautiously when needed for long car rides. The psychiatrist feels this is safe because Mr. K is taking a mood stabilizer (lithium). Also, although dimenhydrinate has anticholinergic properties, occasional use is thought to pose less risk of triggering mania than the constant anticholinergic exposure over several days with a scopolamine patch. (The scopolamine patch contains 1.5 mg of the drug delivered over 3 days [ie, 0.5 mg/d]. In trials of IV scopolamine for depression, the dosage was 0.4 mcg/kg/d administered over 3 consecutive days.^15-17 For an adult weighing 70 kg, this would be equivalent to 0.24 mg/d. Therefore, using a scopolamine patch over 3 days would appear to deliver a robust antidepressant-level dosage, even taking into account possible lower bioavailability with transdermal administration compared with IV infusion.)

The psychiatrist concludes that sporadic use of dimenhydrinate tablets for motion sickness during occasional long car rides poses less of a risk for Mr. K of triggering mania than repeat use of a scopolamine patch.

The author’s observations
Mr. K’s case is notable for several reasons:

• Novelty. This might be the first report of scopolamine-induced mania in the literature. In clinical trials by Furey and Drevets,¹⁵ Drevets and Furey,¹⁶ and Ellis et al,¹⁷ no study participants who received scopolamine infusion developed mania or hypomania. Although it is possible that Mr. K’s manic episode could have occurred spontaneously and was coincidental to his scopolamine use, there are valid reasons why scopolamine could trigger mania in a vulnerable person.
• Biochemical insight. The case underscores the role of the muscarinic cholinergic system in regulating mood.¹⁰
• Rational medical care. Sensible clinical decision-making was needed when Mr. K asked about using dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides. Although there might not be definitively correct answers for questions that arose during Mr. K’s care (in the absence of research literature), theoretical understanding of the antidepressant effects of anticholinergic medications helped inform the psychiatrist’s responses to Mr. K and his wife.

CASE From soft-spoken to manic
Mr. K, age 36, an Asian male with no psychiatric history, arrives at the outpatient psychiatry clinic accompanied by his wife, after being referred from the emergency room the night before. He reports racing thoughts, euphoric mood, increased speech, hypergraphia, elevated self-esteem, decreased need for sleep, distractibility, and increased goal-directed activity. Notably, Mr. K states that he likes how he is feeling.

Mr. K’s wife says that his condition is a clear change from his baseline demeanor: soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

Mr. K reports that his symptoms started approximately 10 days earlier, after he returned from a cruise with his wife. During the cruise, he used a scopolamine patch to prevent motion sickness. Mr. K and his wife say that they believe that the scopolamine patch caused his symptoms.

Can scopolamine cause mania?
   a) No
   b) Yes; this is well-documented in the literature
   c) It is theoretically possible because of scopolamine’s antidepressant and central anticholinergic effects

TREATMENT Lithium, close follow up
Mr. K has no history of psychiatric illness or substance use and no recent use of psycho­active substances—other than scopolamine—that could trigger a manic episode. His family history is significant for a younger brother who had a single manic episode at age 12 and a suicide attempt as a young adult.

Mr. K works full-time on rotating shifts—including some overnight shifts—as a manufacturing supervisor at a biotechnology company. He has been unable to work since returning from the cruise because of his psychiatric symptoms.

Mr. K is started on sustained-release (SR) lithium, 900 mg/d. In addition, the psychiatrist advises Mr. K to continue taking clonazepam, 0.5 to 1 mg as needed, which the emergency medicine physician prescribed, for insomnia. Mr. K is referred to a psychiatric intensive outpatient program (IOP), 3 days a week for 2 weeks, and is advised to stay home from work until symptoms stabilize.

Mr. K follows up closely with the psychiatrist in the clinic, every 1 to 2 weeks for the first month, as well as by several telephone and e-mail contacts. Lithium SR is titrated to 1,200 mg/d, to a therapeutic serum level of 1.1 mEq/L. Clonazepam is switched to quetiapine, 25 to 50 mg as needed, to address ongoing insomnia and to reduce the risk of dependency on clonazepam.

Mr. K’s mania gradually abates. He finishes the IOP and returns to work 3 weeks after his initial presentation. At an office visit, Mr. K’s wife gives the psychiatrist 2 scientific articles documenting the antidepressant effect of scopolamine.^1,2 Mr. K and his wife both continue to believe that Mr. K’s manic episode was triggered by the scopolamine patch he used while on the cruise. They think this is important because Mr. K believes he would not have developed mania otherwise, and he does not want to take a mood stabilizer for the rest of his life.

The author’s observations
There are several proposed mechanisms for scopolamine’s antidepressant effect (Table 1).^3-9 Scopolamine blocks central muscarinic cholinergic receptors, which reduces production of glutamate receptors and leads to reduced glutamate transmission and neurotoxicity.^3,4 Scopolamine—similar to ketamine—could enhance synaptogenesis and synaptic signaling.^5,6 Also, by blocking muscarinic autoreceptors, scopolamine results in an acute upregulation of acetylcholine release, which, in turn, influences the nicotinic, dopamine, serotonin, and neuropeptide Y systems. This action could contribute to anti-inflammatory effects, all of which can benefit mood.^7-9 These antidepressant mechanisms also could explain why, theoretically, scopolamine could precipitate mania in a person predisposed to mental illness.

Proposed by Janowsky et al¹⁰ in 1972, the cholinergic−adrenergic balance hypothesis of affective disorders suggests that depression represents an excess of central cholinergic tone over adrenergic tone, and that mania represents the opposite imbalance. Several lines of evidence in the literature support this theory. For example, depressed patients have been found to have hypersensitive central cholinergic receptors.^11,12 Also, central cholinesterase inhibition has been shown to affect pituitary hormone and epinephrine levels via central muscarinic receptors.¹³ In addition, scopolamine has been shown to attenuate these effects via the central anti-muscarinic mechanism.¹⁴

Rapid antidepressant therapy. Scopolamine is being studied as a rapid antidepressant treatment, although it usually is administered via IV infusion, rather than patch form, in trials.^15-17 IV ketamine is another therapy being investigated for rapid treatment of depression, which might have downstream mechanisms of action related to scopolamine.^5,18 Electroconvulsive therapy is a well-known for its quick antidepressant effect, which could involve synaptogenesis or effects on the neuroendocrine system.¹⁹ Sleep deprivation also can produce a rapid antidepressant effect²⁰ (Table 2^{1,2,5,6,15,16,18-20}).

Mr. K is prone to motion sickness, and asks if he can take over-the-counter dimenhydrinate tablets for long car rides. He reports that dimenhydrinate has worked well for him in the past without triggering manic episodes, and he did not anticipate needing to take it very often.

What would you tell Mr. K about dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides?
   a) Mr. K should not take dimenhydrinate to prevent motion sickness because he experienced a manic episode triggered by a scopolamine patch
   b) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate as much as he wants to prevent motion sickness because it poses no risk of mania
   c) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate with caution and sparingly on a trial basis, as long as he is taking his mood stabilizer

FOLLOW UP Cautious use
The psychiatrist advised Mr. K to take dimenhydrinate cautiously when needed for long car rides. The psychiatrist feels this is safe because Mr. K is taking a mood stabilizer (lithium). Also, although dimenhydrinate has anticholinergic properties, occasional use is thought to pose less risk of triggering mania than the constant anticholinergic exposure over several days with a scopolamine patch. (The scopolamine patch contains 1.5 mg of the drug delivered over 3 days [ie, 0.5 mg/d]. In trials of IV scopolamine for depression, the dosage was 0.4 mcg/kg/d administered over 3 consecutive days.^15-17 For an adult weighing 70 kg, this would be equivalent to 0.24 mg/d. Therefore, using a scopolamine patch over 3 days would appear to deliver a robust antidepressant-level dosage, even taking into account possible lower bioavailability with transdermal administration compared with IV infusion.)

The psychiatrist concludes that sporadic use of dimenhydrinate tablets for motion sickness during occasional long car rides poses less of a risk for Mr. K of triggering mania than repeat use of a scopolamine patch.

The author’s observations
Mr. K’s case is notable for several reasons:

• Novelty. This might be the first report of scopolamine-induced mania in the literature. In clinical trials by Furey and Drevets,¹⁵ Drevets and Furey,¹⁶ and Ellis et al,¹⁷ no study participants who received scopolamine infusion developed mania or hypomania. Although it is possible that Mr. K’s manic episode could have occurred spontaneously and was coincidental to his scopolamine use, there are valid reasons why scopolamine could trigger mania in a vulnerable person.
• Biochemical insight. The case underscores the role of the muscarinic cholinergic system in regulating mood.¹⁰
• Rational medical care. Sensible clinical decision-making was needed when Mr. K asked about using dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides. Although there might not be definitively correct answers for questions that arose during Mr. K’s care (in the absence of research literature), theoretical understanding of the antidepressant effects of anticholinergic medications helped inform the psychiatrist’s responses to Mr. K and his wife.

CASE From soft-spoken to manic
Mr. K, age 36, an Asian male with no psychiatric history, arrives at the outpatient psychiatry clinic accompanied by his wife, after being referred from the emergency room the night before. He reports racing thoughts, euphoric mood, increased speech, hypergraphia, elevated self-esteem, decreased need for sleep, distractibility, and increased goal-directed activity. Notably, Mr. K states that he likes how he is feeling.

Mr. K’s wife says that his condition is a clear change from his baseline demeanor: soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

Mr. K reports that his symptoms started approximately 10 days earlier, after he returned from a cruise with his wife. During the cruise, he used a scopolamine patch to prevent motion sickness. Mr. K and his wife say that they believe that the scopolamine patch caused his symptoms.

Can scopolamine cause mania?
   a) No
   b) Yes; this is well-documented in the literature
   c) It is theoretically possible because of scopolamine’s antidepressant and central anticholinergic effects

TREATMENT Lithium, close follow up
Mr. K has no history of psychiatric illness or substance use and no recent use of psycho­active substances—other than scopolamine—that could trigger a manic episode. His family history is significant for a younger brother who had a single manic episode at age 12 and a suicide attempt as a young adult.

Mr. K works full-time on rotating shifts—including some overnight shifts—as a manufacturing supervisor at a biotechnology company. He has been unable to work since returning from the cruise because of his psychiatric symptoms.

Mr. K is started on sustained-release (SR) lithium, 900 mg/d. In addition, the psychiatrist advises Mr. K to continue taking clonazepam, 0.5 to 1 mg as needed, which the emergency medicine physician prescribed, for insomnia. Mr. K is referred to a psychiatric intensive outpatient program (IOP), 3 days a week for 2 weeks, and is advised to stay home from work until symptoms stabilize.

Mr. K follows up closely with the psychiatrist in the clinic, every 1 to 2 weeks for the first month, as well as by several telephone and e-mail contacts. Lithium SR is titrated to 1,200 mg/d, to a therapeutic serum level of 1.1 mEq/L. Clonazepam is switched to quetiapine, 25 to 50 mg as needed, to address ongoing insomnia and to reduce the risk of dependency on clonazepam.

Mr. K’s mania gradually abates. He finishes the IOP and returns to work 3 weeks after his initial presentation. At an office visit, Mr. K’s wife gives the psychiatrist 2 scientific articles documenting the antidepressant effect of scopolamine.^1,2 Mr. K and his wife both continue to believe that Mr. K’s manic episode was triggered by the scopolamine patch he used while on the cruise. They think this is important because Mr. K believes he would not have developed mania otherwise, and he does not want to take a mood stabilizer for the rest of his life.

The author’s observations
There are several proposed mechanisms for scopolamine’s antidepressant effect (Table 1).^3-9 Scopolamine blocks central muscarinic cholinergic receptors, which reduces production of glutamate receptors and leads to reduced glutamate transmission and neurotoxicity.^3,4 Scopolamine—similar to ketamine—could enhance synaptogenesis and synaptic signaling.^5,6 Also, by blocking muscarinic autoreceptors, scopolamine results in an acute upregulation of acetylcholine release, which, in turn, influences the nicotinic, dopamine, serotonin, and neuropeptide Y systems. This action could contribute to anti-inflammatory effects, all of which can benefit mood.^7-9 These antidepressant mechanisms also could explain why, theoretically, scopolamine could precipitate mania in a person predisposed to mental illness.

Proposed by Janowsky et al¹⁰ in 1972, the cholinergic−adrenergic balance hypothesis of affective disorders suggests that depression represents an excess of central cholinergic tone over adrenergic tone, and that mania represents the opposite imbalance. Several lines of evidence in the literature support this theory. For example, depressed patients have been found to have hypersensitive central cholinergic receptors.^11,12 Also, central cholinesterase inhibition has been shown to affect pituitary hormone and epinephrine levels via central muscarinic receptors.¹³ In addition, scopolamine has been shown to attenuate these effects via the central anti-muscarinic mechanism.¹⁴

Rapid antidepressant therapy. Scopolamine is being studied as a rapid antidepressant treatment, although it usually is administered via IV infusion, rather than patch form, in trials.^15-17 IV ketamine is another therapy being investigated for rapid treatment of depression, which might have downstream mechanisms of action related to scopolamine.^5,18 Electroconvulsive therapy is a well-known for its quick antidepressant effect, which could involve synaptogenesis or effects on the neuroendocrine system.¹⁹ Sleep deprivation also can produce a rapid antidepressant effect²⁰ (Table 2^{1,2,5,6,15,16,18-20}).

Mr. K is prone to motion sickness, and asks if he can take over-the-counter dimenhydrinate tablets for long car rides. He reports that dimenhydrinate has worked well for him in the past without triggering manic episodes, and he did not anticipate needing to take it very often.

What would you tell Mr. K about dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides?
   a) Mr. K should not take dimenhydrinate to prevent motion sickness because he experienced a manic episode triggered by a scopolamine patch
   b) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate as much as he wants to prevent motion sickness because it poses no risk of mania
   c) Mr. K can use dimenhydrinate with caution and sparingly on a trial basis, as long as he is taking his mood stabilizer

FOLLOW UP Cautious use
The psychiatrist advised Mr. K to take dimenhydrinate cautiously when needed for long car rides. The psychiatrist feels this is safe because Mr. K is taking a mood stabilizer (lithium). Also, although dimenhydrinate has anticholinergic properties, occasional use is thought to pose less risk of triggering mania than the constant anticholinergic exposure over several days with a scopolamine patch. (The scopolamine patch contains 1.5 mg of the drug delivered over 3 days [ie, 0.5 mg/d]. In trials of IV scopolamine for depression, the dosage was 0.4 mcg/kg/d administered over 3 consecutive days.^15-17 For an adult weighing 70 kg, this would be equivalent to 0.24 mg/d. Therefore, using a scopolamine patch over 3 days would appear to deliver a robust antidepressant-level dosage, even taking into account possible lower bioavailability with transdermal administration compared with IV infusion.)

The psychiatrist concludes that sporadic use of dimenhydrinate tablets for motion sickness during occasional long car rides poses less of a risk for Mr. K of triggering mania than repeat use of a scopolamine patch.

The author’s observations
Mr. K’s case is notable for several reasons:

• Novelty. This might be the first report of scopolamine-induced mania in the literature. In clinical trials by Furey and Drevets,¹⁵ Drevets and Furey,¹⁶ and Ellis et al,¹⁷ no study participants who received scopolamine infusion developed mania or hypomania. Although it is possible that Mr. K’s manic episode could have occurred spontaneously and was coincidental to his scopolamine use, there are valid reasons why scopolamine could trigger mania in a vulnerable person.
• Biochemical insight. The case underscores the role of the muscarinic cholinergic system in regulating mood.¹⁰
• Rational medical care. Sensible clinical decision-making was needed when Mr. K asked about using dimenhydrinate for motion sickness during car rides. Although there might not be definitively correct answers for questions that arose during Mr. K’s care (in the absence of research literature), theoretical understanding of the antidepressant effects of anticholinergic medications helped inform the psychiatrist’s responses to Mr. K and his wife.

Poor dental hygiene is a serious and prevalent problem among people with mental illness or cognitive impairment: Dental caries and periodontal disease are 3.4 times more common among the mentally ill than among the general population.¹ Little has been published on the causes and prevention of these diseases among the mentally ill, however. Interprofessional education provides the opportunity to reinforce the connection between oral health and systemic health.

Untreated dental disease can result in edentulism (partial or complete tooth loss). Often, this condition leads to embarrassment, poor self-image, and social isolation—all of which can exacerbate the psychotic state and its symptoms. Working with your patient to improve oral health can, in turn, lead to better mental and physical health.

CASE REPORT
Edentulism in a man with schizophrenia
A 34-year-old man, given a diagnosis of schizophrenia at age 17, is admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for bizarre behavior. The next day, 4 maxillary and incisor teeth fall out suddenly while he is brushing his teeth. The patient is brought to emergency dental services.

Factors contributing to his tooth loss include:

• schizophrenia
• neglected oral hygiene
• adverse effects of antipsychotic medication
• lack of advice on the importance of oral hygiene
• failure to recognize signs of a dental problem.

What else can lead to edentulism?
Breakdown of the periodontal attachment² also can be caused by disinterest in oral hygiene practices; craving of, and preference for, carbohydrates because of reduced central serotonin activity^3,4; and xerostomia.

Xerostomia, or dry mouth, caused by psychotropic agents and an altered immune response, facilitates growth of pathogenic bacteria and can lead to several dental diseases (Table). These conditions are exacerbated by consumption of chewing gum, sweets, and sugary drinks in response to constantly feeling thirsty from xerostomia. Advise patients to take frequent sips of fluid or let ice cubes melt in their mouth.

Bruxism. Patients taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or an atypical antipsychotic can develop a movement disorder (eg, extrapyramidal symptoms or tardive dyskinesia) that includes clenching, grinding of the teeth (bruxism), or both, which can worsen their periodontal condition.

Lack of skills, physical dexterity, and motivation to maintain good oral hygiene are common among people with mental illness. Most patients visit a dentist only when they experience a serious oral problem or an emergency (ie, trauma). Many dentists treat psychiatric patients by extracting the tooth that is causing the pain, instead of pursuing complex tooth preservation or restoration techniques because of (1) the extent of the disease, (2) lack of knowledge related to psychiatric illnesses, and (3) frequent and timely follow-ups.⁵

Providing education about oral health to patients, implementing preventive steps, and educating other medical specialities about the link between oral health and systemic health can help to reduce the burden of dental problems among mentally ill patients.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products

Poor dental hygiene is a serious and prevalent problem among people with mental illness or cognitive impairment: Dental caries and periodontal disease are 3.4 times more common among the mentally ill than among the general population.¹ Little has been published on the causes and prevention of these diseases among the mentally ill, however. Interprofessional education provides the opportunity to reinforce the connection between oral health and systemic health.

Untreated dental disease can result in edentulism (partial or complete tooth loss). Often, this condition leads to embarrassment, poor self-image, and social isolation—all of which can exacerbate the psychotic state and its symptoms. Working with your patient to improve oral health can, in turn, lead to better mental and physical health.

CASE REPORT
Edentulism in a man with schizophrenia
A 34-year-old man, given a diagnosis of schizophrenia at age 17, is admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for bizarre behavior. The next day, 4 maxillary and incisor teeth fall out suddenly while he is brushing his teeth. The patient is brought to emergency dental services.

Factors contributing to his tooth loss include:

• schizophrenia
• neglected oral hygiene
• adverse effects of antipsychotic medication
• lack of advice on the importance of oral hygiene
• failure to recognize signs of a dental problem.

What else can lead to edentulism?
Breakdown of the periodontal attachment² also can be caused by disinterest in oral hygiene practices; craving of, and preference for, carbohydrates because of reduced central serotonin activity^3,4; and xerostomia.

Xerostomia, or dry mouth, caused by psychotropic agents and an altered immune response, facilitates growth of pathogenic bacteria and can lead to several dental diseases (Table). These conditions are exacerbated by consumption of chewing gum, sweets, and sugary drinks in response to constantly feeling thirsty from xerostomia. Advise patients to take frequent sips of fluid or let ice cubes melt in their mouth.

Bruxism. Patients taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or an atypical antipsychotic can develop a movement disorder (eg, extrapyramidal symptoms or tardive dyskinesia) that includes clenching, grinding of the teeth (bruxism), or both, which can worsen their periodontal condition.

Lack of skills, physical dexterity, and motivation to maintain good oral hygiene are common among people with mental illness. Most patients visit a dentist only when they experience a serious oral problem or an emergency (ie, trauma). Many dentists treat psychiatric patients by extracting the tooth that is causing the pain, instead of pursuing complex tooth preservation or restoration techniques because of (1) the extent of the disease, (2) lack of knowledge related to psychiatric illnesses, and (3) frequent and timely follow-ups.⁵

Providing education about oral health to patients, implementing preventive steps, and educating other medical specialities about the link between oral health and systemic health can help to reduce the burden of dental problems among mentally ill patients.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products

Poor dental hygiene is a serious and prevalent problem among people with mental illness or cognitive impairment: Dental caries and periodontal disease are 3.4 times more common among the mentally ill than among the general population.¹ Little has been published on the causes and prevention of these diseases among the mentally ill, however. Interprofessional education provides the opportunity to reinforce the connection between oral health and systemic health.

Untreated dental disease can result in edentulism (partial or complete tooth loss). Often, this condition leads to embarrassment, poor self-image, and social isolation—all of which can exacerbate the psychotic state and its symptoms. Working with your patient to improve oral health can, in turn, lead to better mental and physical health.

CASE REPORT
Edentulism in a man with schizophrenia
A 34-year-old man, given a diagnosis of schizophrenia at age 17, is admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for bizarre behavior. The next day, 4 maxillary and incisor teeth fall out suddenly while he is brushing his teeth. The patient is brought to emergency dental services.

Factors contributing to his tooth loss include:

• schizophrenia
• neglected oral hygiene
• adverse effects of antipsychotic medication
• lack of advice on the importance of oral hygiene
• failure to recognize signs of a dental problem.

What else can lead to edentulism?
Breakdown of the periodontal attachment² also can be caused by disinterest in oral hygiene practices; craving of, and preference for, carbohydrates because of reduced central serotonin activity^3,4; and xerostomia.

Xerostomia, or dry mouth, caused by psychotropic agents and an altered immune response, facilitates growth of pathogenic bacteria and can lead to several dental diseases (Table). These conditions are exacerbated by consumption of chewing gum, sweets, and sugary drinks in response to constantly feeling thirsty from xerostomia. Advise patients to take frequent sips of fluid or let ice cubes melt in their mouth.

Bruxism. Patients taking a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or an atypical antipsychotic can develop a movement disorder (eg, extrapyramidal symptoms or tardive dyskinesia) that includes clenching, grinding of the teeth (bruxism), or both, which can worsen their periodontal condition.

Lack of skills, physical dexterity, and motivation to maintain good oral hygiene are common among people with mental illness. Most patients visit a dentist only when they experience a serious oral problem or an emergency (ie, trauma). Many dentists treat psychiatric patients by extracting the tooth that is causing the pain, instead of pursuing complex tooth preservation or restoration techniques because of (1) the extent of the disease, (2) lack of knowledge related to psychiatric illnesses, and (3) frequent and timely follow-ups.⁵

Providing education about oral health to patients, implementing preventive steps, and educating other medical specialities about the link between oral health and systemic health can help to reduce the burden of dental problems among mentally ill patients.

Disclosures
The authors report no financial relationships with any company whose products are mentioned in this article or with manufacturers of competing products

Nonadherence to medical therapy is a widespread and complex problem that is a significant variable in the treatment of psychiatric illness and in patients’ prognosis. More than 50% of people who have a chronic illness struggle to comply with their medication regimen—for many reasons.¹

Many variables predict poor adherence, so it cannot be expected that a single solution will solve the problem entirely.² Novel adherence technologies are available, as we discuss in this article, and more are in development.

What is nonadherence to medical therapy?
Nonadherence can be defined primarily as not taking prescribed medication in the recommended dosage or frequency, or not taking prescribed medication at all.³ Nonadherence can result in an increased risk of relapse, hospitalization, poor therapeutic response, and delayed remission and recovery.

Secondarily, non-attendance or irregular attendance at appointments with providers is a form of nonadherence that can have a negative impact on treatment outcomes.⁴

Why is medical adherence important in psychiatry?
Medication nonadherence has major consequences for psychiatric patients⁵ and for the greater health care system; it is estimated that, in the United States, the cost of nonadherence is as high as $300 billion a year.⁶ In psychiatry, the rate of nonadherence to medical therapy has been reported to be 11% to 80% of patients with schizophrenia; 12% to 64% with bipolar disorders; and 30% to 60% with depression.^7-9 These surprising statistics make it imperative to design treatment strategies that include an effective patient-centric medication adherence plan, based on diagnosis, patient need, education, and support.

Why are patients nonadherent?
Many variables lead to patient nonadherence (Figure 1). The most common reason is that patients simply forget to take their medication.¹⁰ Among psychiatric patients, other reasons are:

• lack of insight
• negative emotional reaction to taking medication¹¹
• feeling better and no longer believing that the medication is needed^12,13
• distress associated with side effects^14,15
• high cost of medication¹⁵
• patient’s perception that medication won’t be effective^16,17
• concern about substance abuse¹⁸
• fear of dependency¹⁹
• complicated dosing regimen²⁰
• general lack of motivation.²¹

Emotional barriers to medication nonadherence are an underestimated area that can benefit greatly from the expertise and understanding of psychiatrists. These barriers include a sense of losing control, self-stigmatization, denial, poor insight, and beliefs about illness and medications.

Additional patient variables that contribute to nonadherence include:

• suboptimal health literacy
• stigma and shame about the need for psychiatric treatment
• lack of patient involvement in treatment decision-making.

Who is responsible for adherence?
Adherence to medical therapy is not the patient’s responsibility, exclusively. Rather, it is a collection of complex components that generally includes physicians and the health care system. Because barriers to medication adherence are complex and varied, solutions to improve adherence must be multifaceted.

Providers. Patients’ care often is managed by multiple physicians, which can lead to communication lapses about complicated drug regimens and potential adverse effects. To assist patients in adhering to their medication regimen, physicians should recognize, and acknowledge to the patient, that many psychiatric patients have difficulty taking their medications and provide advice and information in how to address this problem.

Families. Likewise, it is important to educate patients and their family about the need for medication—helping the patient see that it is his (her) choice and, indeed, his direct responsibility to take his medication and improve his health. The risk–benefit balance of treatment should be explained to the patient and his family, as well as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis and how effective patient–physician collaboration can help him function and adhere to his medication regimen in a consistent, reliable manner.

The larger system. Health care systems can contribute to medication adherence by reducing time constraints on visits to providers, to allow time to discuss all aspects of medication adherence. Limited visits in the clinic means physicians are not able to (1) spend adequate time discussing the medication regimen to ensure full patient comprehension and (2) conduct an assessment of medication-taking behaviors. Team-based approaches could improve efficiency, patient understanding, adherence, and early detection of adherence issues.^22,23

Strategies such as additional clinic visits and reminder calls to discuss adherence carry a cost, but their long-term advantage is that, if patients understand how to better adhere to their medication regimens, their actions will have a positive impact on their health care costs and outcomes and on the wider health economy—as a result of reduced hospital admissions and reduced need to care for patients whose condition deteriorates because of nonadherence. It is imperative that we build strong relationships with other providers to show that we are committed to building supportive, effective adherence support programs that focus on the individual patient’s needs.

What is the available technology?
There is no standard way to measure non­adherence. The most common, and simplest, measure—asking the patient—is unreliable and severely overestimates adherence.

Direct measures of adherence include observing the patient taking his medications and testing for the concentration of those medications in blood or urine. Indirect adherence assessment methods, such as pill counts, a medication diary, self-report, clinician ratings, pharmacy chart review, and electronic devices that monitor the opening of a lid or tablet strip, have all been used; yet reviews of those methods have shown less than favorable results.⁶

Pre-packaged pill packs have helped some patients with a simple method for medication management.

Electronic monitoring, using a medication vial cap device (Figure 2) that electronically records the date and time of bottle opening, has become common in general medicine and among patients with schizophrenia.^6,13,24-26 Diaz et al²⁴ reported that electronic monitoring detected a greater nonadherence rate (57%) than what prescribers reported (7%) or patients self-reported (5%)—demonstrating that prescribers and patients grossly overestimate adherence. In another study that looked at electronic monitoring, researchers reported that adherence was much higher in depressed youth (87%)²⁷ than what had been seen in adults (67%) in a similar study.¹³

The downside to pill packs and electronic monitoring? There is no guarantee the patient has actually taken the medication despite the data reported by the system.

Event marker-signaling devices. Novel technologies have been developed to measure adherence:

Proteus Digital Health feedback system (www.proteus.com) requires that patients ingest a tablet containing a tiny, dietary mineral-based “ingestible event marker.” Upon contact with gastric fluid electrolytes, the event marker emits a unique signal that is transmitted through bodily tissue to a small receiver in a patch worn on the torso. The receiver then transmits a signal to a cellular phone, indicating the time and date when the medication was ingested (Figure 3).

A 4-week pilot study²⁸ found that the ingestible event marker is feasible and acceptable to patients: 27 of 28 participants (96%) completed the study, with a mean adherence rate of 74%. Although the system identifies ingestible sensors with high accuracy and is easily tolerated by patients, the pilot study was brief; a longer duration of adherence while wearing the patch needs to be studied.

Breath analysis, facial recognition. Even directly observing ingestion of a medication can be problematic: Some patients don’t swallow the medication and spit it out later. One way around that subterfuge is to consider using other advanced medication adherence solutions that are breath-based or use facial recognition technology and confirm ingestion.

Xhale SMART (www.xhale.com/smart) is a handheld device that generates a reminder to the patient to take his medication; afterward, he (she) must blow into the device so that ingestion of the medication is detected (Figure 4). The medication has breath-detectable adherence markers already incorporated. The adherence marker then is released into the stomach and small intestine, where the adherence marker metabolite is transported through the bloodstream into the lungs and exhaled. The patient must breathe into a breath analysis device, which measures medication ingestion compared with a baseline breath print.

Several articles in the literature have reported the accuracy of this device in detecting the ingested metabolite in every participant, without adverse effects.^29,30 Clinical data on the use of the breath-based detector is not available to the public at this time.

AiCure (www.aicure.com) is a facial recognition-based technology platform that can work through any smartphone. The device is powered by artificial intelligence software and motion-sensing technology that can detect, in real time, whether the patient is taking the medication as prescribed. Patients who take an incorrect dose, or who do not use the software, are automatically flagged for immediate follow-up. This technology enables real-time intervention by a provider with the nonadherent patient.

An important note: These innovative technological advances are tools that can help clinicians manage an important aspect of treatment, but they do not show the entire picture: The physician−patient relationship and the therapeutic alliance are key to optimal treatment adherence.

Engage and empower the patient
Novel adherence technologies are, as we’ve described, available, and more are being developed. Incorporating these technologies into clinical care requires continued input and support from clinicians and patients. Digital and mobile health applications are multi-beneficial: They can empower patients to self-manage medication regimens and appointments while they also receive social and psychological information and support as needed. Understanding one’s own illness can, ultimately, improve outcomes and significantly reduce health care costs.

Patient empowerment is key. The physician is an important influencer in this regard.

The role of the physician must not be undervalued in maintaining adherence to therapy; she (he) plays a vital role in continued patient engagement and behavioral training. Integrating physician-led oversight, patient education, and commitment, and novel digital mobile adherence technologies will help deliver better outcomes.

The push to engage. A “one size fits all” approach to maintaining adherence won’t be effective. We need to better understand the individual patient’s underlying cause(s) for nonadherence, then to tailor a solution to influence and change that behavior. One way to do this is by interacting and engaging more directly (and in a digital manner) with patients to monitor adherence.

A recent example of the move toward direct patient engagement is the agreement entered by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Proteus Digital Health to develop novel digital health products. The FDA has accepted for review the combination product of Otsuka’s brand of aripiprazole and Proteus’s ingestible sensor. If the product is approved by the FDA, physicians will be able to prescribe aripiprazole with the ingestible sensor embedded in the tablet and then measure medication adherence and other patient physiologic metrics (eg, activity, rest) through the wearable sensor patch and medical software application designed specifically for patient and physician use.

This technology could have huge potential in mental health care, where patients struggle with both adhering to their medication regimen and communicating with the health care team. Physicians could measure adherence when treating adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depressive disorder; flag those who are not adhering as having higher risk of disease progression and poorer outcome; and allow decisions to be made more quickly based on treatment need.

Developing and enhancing these collaborative and patient-centric approaches will increase self-monitoring and patient responsibility, and encourage behavior change.

‘All-in’ strategy. By continuing to use the latest technologies and connecting them to the range of stakeholders—physicians, nurses, pharmacists, payers—we will develop an all-inclusive adherence intervention strategy. All patients will be integrated, and all of them, and their family, will be provided with positive psychoeducational care and motivational counseling (Figure 5). In addition, such a support-based patient experience must be aligned with the work of clinical care providers. Compliance therapy and behavioral training, together with active patient engagement, can help improve insight, acceptance of treatment, and, over the long term, adherence.^31,32

Nonadherence to medical therapy is a widespread and complex problem that is a significant variable in the treatment of psychiatric illness and in patients’ prognosis. More than 50% of people who have a chronic illness struggle to comply with their medication regimen—for many reasons.¹

Many variables predict poor adherence, so it cannot be expected that a single solution will solve the problem entirely.² Novel adherence technologies are available, as we discuss in this article, and more are in development.

What is nonadherence to medical therapy?
Nonadherence can be defined primarily as not taking prescribed medication in the recommended dosage or frequency, or not taking prescribed medication at all.³ Nonadherence can result in an increased risk of relapse, hospitalization, poor therapeutic response, and delayed remission and recovery.

Secondarily, non-attendance or irregular attendance at appointments with providers is a form of nonadherence that can have a negative impact on treatment outcomes.⁴

Why is medical adherence important in psychiatry?
Medication nonadherence has major consequences for psychiatric patients⁵ and for the greater health care system; it is estimated that, in the United States, the cost of nonadherence is as high as $300 billion a year.⁶ In psychiatry, the rate of nonadherence to medical therapy has been reported to be 11% to 80% of patients with schizophrenia; 12% to 64% with bipolar disorders; and 30% to 60% with depression.^7-9 These surprising statistics make it imperative to design treatment strategies that include an effective patient-centric medication adherence plan, based on diagnosis, patient need, education, and support.

Why are patients nonadherent?
Many variables lead to patient nonadherence (Figure 1). The most common reason is that patients simply forget to take their medication.¹⁰ Among psychiatric patients, other reasons are:

• lack of insight
• negative emotional reaction to taking medication¹¹
• feeling better and no longer believing that the medication is needed^12,13
• distress associated with side effects^14,15
• high cost of medication¹⁵
• patient’s perception that medication won’t be effective^16,17
• concern about substance abuse¹⁸
• fear of dependency¹⁹
• complicated dosing regimen²⁰
• general lack of motivation.²¹

Emotional barriers to medication nonadherence are an underestimated area that can benefit greatly from the expertise and understanding of psychiatrists. These barriers include a sense of losing control, self-stigmatization, denial, poor insight, and beliefs about illness and medications.

Additional patient variables that contribute to nonadherence include:

• suboptimal health literacy
• stigma and shame about the need for psychiatric treatment
• lack of patient involvement in treatment decision-making.

Who is responsible for adherence?
Adherence to medical therapy is not the patient’s responsibility, exclusively. Rather, it is a collection of complex components that generally includes physicians and the health care system. Because barriers to medication adherence are complex and varied, solutions to improve adherence must be multifaceted.

Providers. Patients’ care often is managed by multiple physicians, which can lead to communication lapses about complicated drug regimens and potential adverse effects. To assist patients in adhering to their medication regimen, physicians should recognize, and acknowledge to the patient, that many psychiatric patients have difficulty taking their medications and provide advice and information in how to address this problem.

Families. Likewise, it is important to educate patients and their family about the need for medication—helping the patient see that it is his (her) choice and, indeed, his direct responsibility to take his medication and improve his health. The risk–benefit balance of treatment should be explained to the patient and his family, as well as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis and how effective patient–physician collaboration can help him function and adhere to his medication regimen in a consistent, reliable manner.

The larger system. Health care systems can contribute to medication adherence by reducing time constraints on visits to providers, to allow time to discuss all aspects of medication adherence. Limited visits in the clinic means physicians are not able to (1) spend adequate time discussing the medication regimen to ensure full patient comprehension and (2) conduct an assessment of medication-taking behaviors. Team-based approaches could improve efficiency, patient understanding, adherence, and early detection of adherence issues.^22,23

Strategies such as additional clinic visits and reminder calls to discuss adherence carry a cost, but their long-term advantage is that, if patients understand how to better adhere to their medication regimens, their actions will have a positive impact on their health care costs and outcomes and on the wider health economy—as a result of reduced hospital admissions and reduced need to care for patients whose condition deteriorates because of nonadherence. It is imperative that we build strong relationships with other providers to show that we are committed to building supportive, effective adherence support programs that focus on the individual patient’s needs.

What is the available technology?
There is no standard way to measure non­adherence. The most common, and simplest, measure—asking the patient—is unreliable and severely overestimates adherence.

Direct measures of adherence include observing the patient taking his medications and testing for the concentration of those medications in blood or urine. Indirect adherence assessment methods, such as pill counts, a medication diary, self-report, clinician ratings, pharmacy chart review, and electronic devices that monitor the opening of a lid or tablet strip, have all been used; yet reviews of those methods have shown less than favorable results.⁶

Pre-packaged pill packs have helped some patients with a simple method for medication management.

Electronic monitoring, using a medication vial cap device (Figure 2) that electronically records the date and time of bottle opening, has become common in general medicine and among patients with schizophrenia.^6,13,24-26 Diaz et al²⁴ reported that electronic monitoring detected a greater nonadherence rate (57%) than what prescribers reported (7%) or patients self-reported (5%)—demonstrating that prescribers and patients grossly overestimate adherence. In another study that looked at electronic monitoring, researchers reported that adherence was much higher in depressed youth (87%)²⁷ than what had been seen in adults (67%) in a similar study.¹³

The downside to pill packs and electronic monitoring? There is no guarantee the patient has actually taken the medication despite the data reported by the system.

Event marker-signaling devices. Novel technologies have been developed to measure adherence:

Proteus Digital Health feedback system (www.proteus.com) requires that patients ingest a tablet containing a tiny, dietary mineral-based “ingestible event marker.” Upon contact with gastric fluid electrolytes, the event marker emits a unique signal that is transmitted through bodily tissue to a small receiver in a patch worn on the torso. The receiver then transmits a signal to a cellular phone, indicating the time and date when the medication was ingested (Figure 3).

A 4-week pilot study²⁸ found that the ingestible event marker is feasible and acceptable to patients: 27 of 28 participants (96%) completed the study, with a mean adherence rate of 74%. Although the system identifies ingestible sensors with high accuracy and is easily tolerated by patients, the pilot study was brief; a longer duration of adherence while wearing the patch needs to be studied.

Breath analysis, facial recognition. Even directly observing ingestion of a medication can be problematic: Some patients don’t swallow the medication and spit it out later. One way around that subterfuge is to consider using other advanced medication adherence solutions that are breath-based or use facial recognition technology and confirm ingestion.

Xhale SMART (www.xhale.com/smart) is a handheld device that generates a reminder to the patient to take his medication; afterward, he (she) must blow into the device so that ingestion of the medication is detected (Figure 4). The medication has breath-detectable adherence markers already incorporated. The adherence marker then is released into the stomach and small intestine, where the adherence marker metabolite is transported through the bloodstream into the lungs and exhaled. The patient must breathe into a breath analysis device, which measures medication ingestion compared with a baseline breath print.

Several articles in the literature have reported the accuracy of this device in detecting the ingested metabolite in every participant, without adverse effects.^29,30 Clinical data on the use of the breath-based detector is not available to the public at this time.

AiCure (www.aicure.com) is a facial recognition-based technology platform that can work through any smartphone. The device is powered by artificial intelligence software and motion-sensing technology that can detect, in real time, whether the patient is taking the medication as prescribed. Patients who take an incorrect dose, or who do not use the software, are automatically flagged for immediate follow-up. This technology enables real-time intervention by a provider with the nonadherent patient.

An important note: These innovative technological advances are tools that can help clinicians manage an important aspect of treatment, but they do not show the entire picture: The physician−patient relationship and the therapeutic alliance are key to optimal treatment adherence.

Engage and empower the patient
Novel adherence technologies are, as we’ve described, available, and more are being developed. Incorporating these technologies into clinical care requires continued input and support from clinicians and patients. Digital and mobile health applications are multi-beneficial: They can empower patients to self-manage medication regimens and appointments while they also receive social and psychological information and support as needed. Understanding one’s own illness can, ultimately, improve outcomes and significantly reduce health care costs.

Patient empowerment is key. The physician is an important influencer in this regard.

The role of the physician must not be undervalued in maintaining adherence to therapy; she (he) plays a vital role in continued patient engagement and behavioral training. Integrating physician-led oversight, patient education, and commitment, and novel digital mobile adherence technologies will help deliver better outcomes.

The push to engage. A “one size fits all” approach to maintaining adherence won’t be effective. We need to better understand the individual patient’s underlying cause(s) for nonadherence, then to tailor a solution to influence and change that behavior. One way to do this is by interacting and engaging more directly (and in a digital manner) with patients to monitor adherence.

A recent example of the move toward direct patient engagement is the agreement entered by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Proteus Digital Health to develop novel digital health products. The FDA has accepted for review the combination product of Otsuka’s brand of aripiprazole and Proteus’s ingestible sensor. If the product is approved by the FDA, physicians will be able to prescribe aripiprazole with the ingestible sensor embedded in the tablet and then measure medication adherence and other patient physiologic metrics (eg, activity, rest) through the wearable sensor patch and medical software application designed specifically for patient and physician use.

This technology could have huge potential in mental health care, where patients struggle with both adhering to their medication regimen and communicating with the health care team. Physicians could measure adherence when treating adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depressive disorder; flag those who are not adhering as having higher risk of disease progression and poorer outcome; and allow decisions to be made more quickly based on treatment need.

Developing and enhancing these collaborative and patient-centric approaches will increase self-monitoring and patient responsibility, and encourage behavior change.

‘All-in’ strategy. By continuing to use the latest technologies and connecting them to the range of stakeholders—physicians, nurses, pharmacists, payers—we will develop an all-inclusive adherence intervention strategy. All patients will be integrated, and all of them, and their family, will be provided with positive psychoeducational care and motivational counseling (Figure 5). In addition, such a support-based patient experience must be aligned with the work of clinical care providers. Compliance therapy and behavioral training, together with active patient engagement, can help improve insight, acceptance of treatment, and, over the long term, adherence.^31,32

Nonadherence to medical therapy is a widespread and complex problem that is a significant variable in the treatment of psychiatric illness and in patients’ prognosis. More than 50% of people who have a chronic illness struggle to comply with their medication regimen—for many reasons.¹

Many variables predict poor adherence, so it cannot be expected that a single solution will solve the problem entirely.² Novel adherence technologies are available, as we discuss in this article, and more are in development.

What is nonadherence to medical therapy?
Nonadherence can be defined primarily as not taking prescribed medication in the recommended dosage or frequency, or not taking prescribed medication at all.³ Nonadherence can result in an increased risk of relapse, hospitalization, poor therapeutic response, and delayed remission and recovery.

Secondarily, non-attendance or irregular attendance at appointments with providers is a form of nonadherence that can have a negative impact on treatment outcomes.⁴

Why is medical adherence important in psychiatry?
Medication nonadherence has major consequences for psychiatric patients⁵ and for the greater health care system; it is estimated that, in the United States, the cost of nonadherence is as high as $300 billion a year.⁶ In psychiatry, the rate of nonadherence to medical therapy has been reported to be 11% to 80% of patients with schizophrenia; 12% to 64% with bipolar disorders; and 30% to 60% with depression.^7-9 These surprising statistics make it imperative to design treatment strategies that include an effective patient-centric medication adherence plan, based on diagnosis, patient need, education, and support.

Why are patients nonadherent?
Many variables lead to patient nonadherence (Figure 1). The most common reason is that patients simply forget to take their medication.¹⁰ Among psychiatric patients, other reasons are:

• lack of insight
• negative emotional reaction to taking medication¹¹
• feeling better and no longer believing that the medication is needed^12,13
• distress associated with side effects^14,15
• high cost of medication¹⁵
• patient’s perception that medication won’t be effective^16,17
• concern about substance abuse¹⁸
• fear of dependency¹⁹
• complicated dosing regimen²⁰
• general lack of motivation.²¹

Emotional barriers to medication nonadherence are an underestimated area that can benefit greatly from the expertise and understanding of psychiatrists. These barriers include a sense of losing control, self-stigmatization, denial, poor insight, and beliefs about illness and medications.

Additional patient variables that contribute to nonadherence include:

• suboptimal health literacy
• stigma and shame about the need for psychiatric treatment
• lack of patient involvement in treatment decision-making.

Who is responsible for adherence?
Adherence to medical therapy is not the patient’s responsibility, exclusively. Rather, it is a collection of complex components that generally includes physicians and the health care system. Because barriers to medication adherence are complex and varied, solutions to improve adherence must be multifaceted.

Providers. Patients’ care often is managed by multiple physicians, which can lead to communication lapses about complicated drug regimens and potential adverse effects. To assist patients in adhering to their medication regimen, physicians should recognize, and acknowledge to the patient, that many psychiatric patients have difficulty taking their medications and provide advice and information in how to address this problem.

Families. Likewise, it is important to educate patients and their family about the need for medication—helping the patient see that it is his (her) choice and, indeed, his direct responsibility to take his medication and improve his health. The risk–benefit balance of treatment should be explained to the patient and his family, as well as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis and how effective patient–physician collaboration can help him function and adhere to his medication regimen in a consistent, reliable manner.

The larger system. Health care systems can contribute to medication adherence by reducing time constraints on visits to providers, to allow time to discuss all aspects of medication adherence. Limited visits in the clinic means physicians are not able to (1) spend adequate time discussing the medication regimen to ensure full patient comprehension and (2) conduct an assessment of medication-taking behaviors. Team-based approaches could improve efficiency, patient understanding, adherence, and early detection of adherence issues.^22,23

Strategies such as additional clinic visits and reminder calls to discuss adherence carry a cost, but their long-term advantage is that, if patients understand how to better adhere to their medication regimens, their actions will have a positive impact on their health care costs and outcomes and on the wider health economy—as a result of reduced hospital admissions and reduced need to care for patients whose condition deteriorates because of nonadherence. It is imperative that we build strong relationships with other providers to show that we are committed to building supportive, effective adherence support programs that focus on the individual patient’s needs.

What is the available technology?
There is no standard way to measure non­adherence. The most common, and simplest, measure—asking the patient—is unreliable and severely overestimates adherence.

Direct measures of adherence include observing the patient taking his medications and testing for the concentration of those medications in blood or urine. Indirect adherence assessment methods, such as pill counts, a medication diary, self-report, clinician ratings, pharmacy chart review, and electronic devices that monitor the opening of a lid or tablet strip, have all been used; yet reviews of those methods have shown less than favorable results.⁶

Pre-packaged pill packs have helped some patients with a simple method for medication management.

Electronic monitoring, using a medication vial cap device (Figure 2) that electronically records the date and time of bottle opening, has become common in general medicine and among patients with schizophrenia.^6,13,24-26 Diaz et al²⁴ reported that electronic monitoring detected a greater nonadherence rate (57%) than what prescribers reported (7%) or patients self-reported (5%)—demonstrating that prescribers and patients grossly overestimate adherence. In another study that looked at electronic monitoring, researchers reported that adherence was much higher in depressed youth (87%)²⁷ than what had been seen in adults (67%) in a similar study.¹³

The downside to pill packs and electronic monitoring? There is no guarantee the patient has actually taken the medication despite the data reported by the system.

Event marker-signaling devices. Novel technologies have been developed to measure adherence:

Proteus Digital Health feedback system (www.proteus.com) requires that patients ingest a tablet containing a tiny, dietary mineral-based “ingestible event marker.” Upon contact with gastric fluid electrolytes, the event marker emits a unique signal that is transmitted through bodily tissue to a small receiver in a patch worn on the torso. The receiver then transmits a signal to a cellular phone, indicating the time and date when the medication was ingested (Figure 3).

A 4-week pilot study²⁸ found that the ingestible event marker is feasible and acceptable to patients: 27 of 28 participants (96%) completed the study, with a mean adherence rate of 74%. Although the system identifies ingestible sensors with high accuracy and is easily tolerated by patients, the pilot study was brief; a longer duration of adherence while wearing the patch needs to be studied.

Breath analysis, facial recognition. Even directly observing ingestion of a medication can be problematic: Some patients don’t swallow the medication and spit it out later. One way around that subterfuge is to consider using other advanced medication adherence solutions that are breath-based or use facial recognition technology and confirm ingestion.

Xhale SMART (www.xhale.com/smart) is a handheld device that generates a reminder to the patient to take his medication; afterward, he (she) must blow into the device so that ingestion of the medication is detected (Figure 4). The medication has breath-detectable adherence markers already incorporated. The adherence marker then is released into the stomach and small intestine, where the adherence marker metabolite is transported through the bloodstream into the lungs and exhaled. The patient must breathe into a breath analysis device, which measures medication ingestion compared with a baseline breath print.

Several articles in the literature have reported the accuracy of this device in detecting the ingested metabolite in every participant, without adverse effects.^29,30 Clinical data on the use of the breath-based detector is not available to the public at this time.

AiCure (www.aicure.com) is a facial recognition-based technology platform that can work through any smartphone. The device is powered by artificial intelligence software and motion-sensing technology that can detect, in real time, whether the patient is taking the medication as prescribed. Patients who take an incorrect dose, or who do not use the software, are automatically flagged for immediate follow-up. This technology enables real-time intervention by a provider with the nonadherent patient.

An important note: These innovative technological advances are tools that can help clinicians manage an important aspect of treatment, but they do not show the entire picture: The physician−patient relationship and the therapeutic alliance are key to optimal treatment adherence.

Engage and empower the patient
Novel adherence technologies are, as we’ve described, available, and more are being developed. Incorporating these technologies into clinical care requires continued input and support from clinicians and patients. Digital and mobile health applications are multi-beneficial: They can empower patients to self-manage medication regimens and appointments while they also receive social and psychological information and support as needed. Understanding one’s own illness can, ultimately, improve outcomes and significantly reduce health care costs.

Patient empowerment is key. The physician is an important influencer in this regard.

The role of the physician must not be undervalued in maintaining adherence to therapy; she (he) plays a vital role in continued patient engagement and behavioral training. Integrating physician-led oversight, patient education, and commitment, and novel digital mobile adherence technologies will help deliver better outcomes.

The push to engage. A “one size fits all” approach to maintaining adherence won’t be effective. We need to better understand the individual patient’s underlying cause(s) for nonadherence, then to tailor a solution to influence and change that behavior. One way to do this is by interacting and engaging more directly (and in a digital manner) with patients to monitor adherence.

A recent example of the move toward direct patient engagement is the agreement entered by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Proteus Digital Health to develop novel digital health products. The FDA has accepted for review the combination product of Otsuka’s brand of aripiprazole and Proteus’s ingestible sensor. If the product is approved by the FDA, physicians will be able to prescribe aripiprazole with the ingestible sensor embedded in the tablet and then measure medication adherence and other patient physiologic metrics (eg, activity, rest) through the wearable sensor patch and medical software application designed specifically for patient and physician use.

This technology could have huge potential in mental health care, where patients struggle with both adhering to their medication regimen and communicating with the health care team. Physicians could measure adherence when treating adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depressive disorder; flag those who are not adhering as having higher risk of disease progression and poorer outcome; and allow decisions to be made more quickly based on treatment need.

Developing and enhancing these collaborative and patient-centric approaches will increase self-monitoring and patient responsibility, and encourage behavior change.

‘All-in’ strategy. By continuing to use the latest technologies and connecting them to the range of stakeholders—physicians, nurses, pharmacists, payers—we will develop an all-inclusive adherence intervention strategy. All patients will be integrated, and all of them, and their family, will be provided with positive psychoeducational care and motivational counseling (Figure 5). In addition, such a support-based patient experience must be aligned with the work of clinical care providers. Compliance therapy and behavioral training, together with active patient engagement, can help improve insight, acceptance of treatment, and, over the long term, adherence.^31,32

Mr. C, age 31, who has a 7-year history of schizophrenia and is currently on perphenazine, 24 mg twice a day, presents for psychiatric admission after experiencing paranoid delusions. Notable symptoms include delusions of reference and persecution, along with affective flattening and intermittent suicidal ideation. Perphenazine is tapered, and he is started on quetiapine, titrated to 600 mg/d.

Past antipsychotic trials include aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, haloperidol,

and ziprasidone. Because of his refractory symptoms and tolerability issues with other antipsychotics, Mr. C is switched to clozapine, 400 mg/d. His symptoms improve, but he experiences dose-limiting sialorrhea. Risperidone, 1 mg/d, is added to clozapine, which helps his psychosis and improves his functional status. Additionally, Mr. C develops enough insight to recognize his delusions and use skills learned in psychotherapy to cope with them.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP), the concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotics, is a topic of debate among mental health care providers. Studies indicate the prevalence of APP can reach upwards of 40%, with 1 systematic review citing more recent median APP prevalence in North America as 17%, an increase from a median of 12.7% in the 1980s.¹ Other studies cite more recent figures as around 20%.^2,3

The literature lists several reasons for use of long-term APP, including:

• incomplete cross-titration
• accidental continuation of APP that was intended to be temporary
• monotherapy failure
• mitigation or enhancement of effects of other antipsychotics (Table 1).^1,4

Other factors include direct-to-consumer advertising, external pressures to decrease hospital stays, and low doctor-to-patient ratios.⁵ Although it can take as long as 16 weeks to see clinically significant improvement with an antipsychotic, prescribers might expect results after 4 weeks of treatment.⁶ Therefore, treatments could be labeled ineffective because trials did not last long enough, leading to premature use of polypharmacy. Combinations of a first- and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) or 2 SGAs are most common.^2,7,8

Treatment guidelines (Table 2)^9-17 suggest APP could be considered after several failures of monotherapy, including clozapine monotherapy, although some guidelines do not address the issue or recommend against APP because of lack of efficacy and safety data. Additionally, APP poses safety concerns (Table 3).^18-22 Recommendations for APP with combinations that do not include clozapine generally are not provided, because high-level evidence to support this strategy is lacking. Data on safety and efficacy of APP are mixed, with much of the literature dominated by case reports and uncontrolled studies.¹⁹

What to initiate
Clozapine. Higher-level evidence is available for clozapine APP. The combination of clozapine and risperidone is one of the most thoroughly studied and, therefore, is a reasonable first choice. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining clozapine plus risperidone^23-29 have yielded mixed results and have not provided conclusive information regarding benefit for positive vs negative symptoms.^24-28

One RCT reported a significant change in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total and positive symptom scores.²⁷ Other RCTs have shown a non-significant trend toward greater change in total, positive, and negative symptom scores with the clozapine-risperidone combination compared with clozapine monotherapy.^25,28 In terms of cognition, this combination provided no additional benefit.²³ Response, defined as ≥20% reduction in total BPRS or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, for clozapine plus risperidone range from 13% to 83%, compared with 8% to 29% for clozapine plus placebo.^24,25,27,29

Data from 1 study²⁷ suggest a number needed to treat of 4 to achieve at least a 20% improvement in BPRS scores with clozapine plus risperidone vs clozapine monotherapy. Across these studies, the average risperidone dosage was 4 mg/d, although using the lowest effective dosage is encouraged. A small number of RCTs and articles examining other APP combinations (Table 4)^30-33 have yielded mixed results.

Overall, APP appears to be well-tolerated, although it is associated with an increased risk of adverse effects, including sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, hyperprolactinemia, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, anticholinergic effects, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.^23,24,34-36 Surprisingly, 1 literature review³⁶ found no association between APP and increased risk of orthostasis. Increased occurrence of sedation, hyperprolactinemia, and an elevated fasting blood glucose level have been found for clozapine plus risperidone compared with clozapine monotherapy.^24-26,28

Aripiprazole. Adjunctive aripiprazole, a dopamine partial agonist, could reduce elevated prolactin levels caused by other antipsychotics.³² In a study³⁷ of 56 patients taking haloperidol who had hyperprolactinemia, prolactin levels normalized in 88.5% of patients taking adjunctive aripiprazole, 30 mg/d, compared with 3.6% of those with added placebo. Furthermore, results from 2 RCTs^38,39 of patients taking clozapine or olanzapine suggest adjunctive aripiprazole could improve weight and metabolic profile. Therefore, adding aripiprazole to existing antipsychotic regimens is reasonable for patients with drug-induced symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or metabolic effects and who cannot be easily switched to another antipsychotic.

When to initiate
Most treatment guidelines^9-17 recommend clozapine only after monotherapy with at least 2 other antipsychotics fails. It is reasonable to add an antipsychotic to clozapine in patients who have shown a partial response to clozapine after a minimum of 3 months. Non-clozapine APP should be considered when:

• a patient derives no benefit from clozapine
• refuses clozapine
• clozapine is contraindicated
• APP is initiated to mitigate side effects from another antipsychotic.

Antipsychotics could take up to 16 weeks to achieve full efficacy,⁶ therefore, an adequate trial period within the target dosage range is advised for all antipsychotics (Table 5).^13,40

Why initiate
Based on available data, partial response to maximum recommended dosages of antipsychotic monotherapy, including clozapine, or inability to tolerate higher dosages, provides a reason for initiating APP. Non-clozapine APP generally should be considered only in patients who refuse, cannot tolerate, or do not respond to clozapine. Consider using validated rating scales to track treatment outcomes (ideally, a ≥20% symptomatic reduction on the BPRS or PANSS), although there is no formal guidance regarding their use or benefit in APP.

Summing up
APP is a fairly common prescribing practice, even though safety and efficacy data are mixed. The issue of APP has become prevalent enough that regulatory bodies are involved in its monitoring and documentation.⁴¹

Clozapine APP, especially with risperidone, has the most substantial evidence to support it. Although APP generally is well tolerated, the overall dearth of conclusive safety and efficacy data indicates that this practice should be reserved for patients who have not responded adequately to monotherapy, including clozapine. Adjunctive aripiprazole could be considered for addressing symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or other metabolic effects caused by other antipsychotics.

An adequate trial as long as 16 weeks is advised before assessing the efficacy of any antipsychotic regimen. If APP provides inadequate response, or if there is no clear indication for APP, consider switching the patient back to monotherapy.^42-44

Mr. C, age 31, who has a 7-year history of schizophrenia and is currently on perphenazine, 24 mg twice a day, presents for psychiatric admission after experiencing paranoid delusions. Notable symptoms include delusions of reference and persecution, along with affective flattening and intermittent suicidal ideation. Perphenazine is tapered, and he is started on quetiapine, titrated to 600 mg/d.

Past antipsychotic trials include aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, haloperidol,

and ziprasidone. Because of his refractory symptoms and tolerability issues with other antipsychotics, Mr. C is switched to clozapine, 400 mg/d. His symptoms improve, but he experiences dose-limiting sialorrhea. Risperidone, 1 mg/d, is added to clozapine, which helps his psychosis and improves his functional status. Additionally, Mr. C develops enough insight to recognize his delusions and use skills learned in psychotherapy to cope with them.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP), the concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotics, is a topic of debate among mental health care providers. Studies indicate the prevalence of APP can reach upwards of 40%, with 1 systematic review citing more recent median APP prevalence in North America as 17%, an increase from a median of 12.7% in the 1980s.¹ Other studies cite more recent figures as around 20%.^2,3

The literature lists several reasons for use of long-term APP, including:

• incomplete cross-titration
• accidental continuation of APP that was intended to be temporary
• monotherapy failure
• mitigation or enhancement of effects of other antipsychotics (Table 1).^1,4

Other factors include direct-to-consumer advertising, external pressures to decrease hospital stays, and low doctor-to-patient ratios.⁵ Although it can take as long as 16 weeks to see clinically significant improvement with an antipsychotic, prescribers might expect results after 4 weeks of treatment.⁶ Therefore, treatments could be labeled ineffective because trials did not last long enough, leading to premature use of polypharmacy. Combinations of a first- and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) or 2 SGAs are most common.^2,7,8

Treatment guidelines (Table 2)^9-17 suggest APP could be considered after several failures of monotherapy, including clozapine monotherapy, although some guidelines do not address the issue or recommend against APP because of lack of efficacy and safety data. Additionally, APP poses safety concerns (Table 3).^18-22 Recommendations for APP with combinations that do not include clozapine generally are not provided, because high-level evidence to support this strategy is lacking. Data on safety and efficacy of APP are mixed, with much of the literature dominated by case reports and uncontrolled studies.¹⁹

What to initiate
Clozapine. Higher-level evidence is available for clozapine APP. The combination of clozapine and risperidone is one of the most thoroughly studied and, therefore, is a reasonable first choice. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining clozapine plus risperidone^23-29 have yielded mixed results and have not provided conclusive information regarding benefit for positive vs negative symptoms.^24-28

One RCT reported a significant change in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total and positive symptom scores.²⁷ Other RCTs have shown a non-significant trend toward greater change in total, positive, and negative symptom scores with the clozapine-risperidone combination compared with clozapine monotherapy.^25,28 In terms of cognition, this combination provided no additional benefit.²³ Response, defined as ≥20% reduction in total BPRS or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, for clozapine plus risperidone range from 13% to 83%, compared with 8% to 29% for clozapine plus placebo.^24,25,27,29

Data from 1 study²⁷ suggest a number needed to treat of 4 to achieve at least a 20% improvement in BPRS scores with clozapine plus risperidone vs clozapine monotherapy. Across these studies, the average risperidone dosage was 4 mg/d, although using the lowest effective dosage is encouraged. A small number of RCTs and articles examining other APP combinations (Table 4)^30-33 have yielded mixed results.

Overall, APP appears to be well-tolerated, although it is associated with an increased risk of adverse effects, including sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, hyperprolactinemia, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, anticholinergic effects, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.^23,24,34-36 Surprisingly, 1 literature review³⁶ found no association between APP and increased risk of orthostasis. Increased occurrence of sedation, hyperprolactinemia, and an elevated fasting blood glucose level have been found for clozapine plus risperidone compared with clozapine monotherapy.^24-26,28

Aripiprazole. Adjunctive aripiprazole, a dopamine partial agonist, could reduce elevated prolactin levels caused by other antipsychotics.³² In a study³⁷ of 56 patients taking haloperidol who had hyperprolactinemia, prolactin levels normalized in 88.5% of patients taking adjunctive aripiprazole, 30 mg/d, compared with 3.6% of those with added placebo. Furthermore, results from 2 RCTs^38,39 of patients taking clozapine or olanzapine suggest adjunctive aripiprazole could improve weight and metabolic profile. Therefore, adding aripiprazole to existing antipsychotic regimens is reasonable for patients with drug-induced symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or metabolic effects and who cannot be easily switched to another antipsychotic.

When to initiate
Most treatment guidelines^9-17 recommend clozapine only after monotherapy with at least 2 other antipsychotics fails. It is reasonable to add an antipsychotic to clozapine in patients who have shown a partial response to clozapine after a minimum of 3 months. Non-clozapine APP should be considered when:

• a patient derives no benefit from clozapine
• refuses clozapine
• clozapine is contraindicated
• APP is initiated to mitigate side effects from another antipsychotic.

Antipsychotics could take up to 16 weeks to achieve full efficacy,⁶ therefore, an adequate trial period within the target dosage range is advised for all antipsychotics (Table 5).^13,40

Why initiate
Based on available data, partial response to maximum recommended dosages of antipsychotic monotherapy, including clozapine, or inability to tolerate higher dosages, provides a reason for initiating APP. Non-clozapine APP generally should be considered only in patients who refuse, cannot tolerate, or do not respond to clozapine. Consider using validated rating scales to track treatment outcomes (ideally, a ≥20% symptomatic reduction on the BPRS or PANSS), although there is no formal guidance regarding their use or benefit in APP.

Summing up
APP is a fairly common prescribing practice, even though safety and efficacy data are mixed. The issue of APP has become prevalent enough that regulatory bodies are involved in its monitoring and documentation.⁴¹

Clozapine APP, especially with risperidone, has the most substantial evidence to support it. Although APP generally is well tolerated, the overall dearth of conclusive safety and efficacy data indicates that this practice should be reserved for patients who have not responded adequately to monotherapy, including clozapine. Adjunctive aripiprazole could be considered for addressing symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or other metabolic effects caused by other antipsychotics.

An adequate trial as long as 16 weeks is advised before assessing the efficacy of any antipsychotic regimen. If APP provides inadequate response, or if there is no clear indication for APP, consider switching the patient back to monotherapy.^42-44

Mr. C, age 31, who has a 7-year history of schizophrenia and is currently on perphenazine, 24 mg twice a day, presents for psychiatric admission after experiencing paranoid delusions. Notable symptoms include delusions of reference and persecution, along with affective flattening and intermittent suicidal ideation. Perphenazine is tapered, and he is started on quetiapine, titrated to 600 mg/d.

Past antipsychotic trials include aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, haloperidol,

and ziprasidone. Because of his refractory symptoms and tolerability issues with other antipsychotics, Mr. C is switched to clozapine, 400 mg/d. His symptoms improve, but he experiences dose-limiting sialorrhea. Risperidone, 1 mg/d, is added to clozapine, which helps his psychosis and improves his functional status. Additionally, Mr. C develops enough insight to recognize his delusions and use skills learned in psychotherapy to cope with them.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP), the concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotics, is a topic of debate among mental health care providers. Studies indicate the prevalence of APP can reach upwards of 40%, with 1 systematic review citing more recent median APP prevalence in North America as 17%, an increase from a median of 12.7% in the 1980s.¹ Other studies cite more recent figures as around 20%.^2,3

The literature lists several reasons for use of long-term APP, including:

• incomplete cross-titration
• accidental continuation of APP that was intended to be temporary
• monotherapy failure
• mitigation or enhancement of effects of other antipsychotics (Table 1).^1,4

Other factors include direct-to-consumer advertising, external pressures to decrease hospital stays, and low doctor-to-patient ratios.⁵ Although it can take as long as 16 weeks to see clinically significant improvement with an antipsychotic, prescribers might expect results after 4 weeks of treatment.⁶ Therefore, treatments could be labeled ineffective because trials did not last long enough, leading to premature use of polypharmacy. Combinations of a first- and second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) or 2 SGAs are most common.^2,7,8

Treatment guidelines (Table 2)^9-17 suggest APP could be considered after several failures of monotherapy, including clozapine monotherapy, although some guidelines do not address the issue or recommend against APP because of lack of efficacy and safety data. Additionally, APP poses safety concerns (Table 3).^18-22 Recommendations for APP with combinations that do not include clozapine generally are not provided, because high-level evidence to support this strategy is lacking. Data on safety and efficacy of APP are mixed, with much of the literature dominated by case reports and uncontrolled studies.¹⁹

What to initiate
Clozapine. Higher-level evidence is available for clozapine APP. The combination of clozapine and risperidone is one of the most thoroughly studied and, therefore, is a reasonable first choice. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining clozapine plus risperidone^23-29 have yielded mixed results and have not provided conclusive information regarding benefit for positive vs negative symptoms.^24-28

One RCT reported a significant change in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total and positive symptom scores.²⁷ Other RCTs have shown a non-significant trend toward greater change in total, positive, and negative symptom scores with the clozapine-risperidone combination compared with clozapine monotherapy.^25,28 In terms of cognition, this combination provided no additional benefit.²³ Response, defined as ≥20% reduction in total BPRS or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, for clozapine plus risperidone range from 13% to 83%, compared with 8% to 29% for clozapine plus placebo.^24,25,27,29

Data from 1 study²⁷ suggest a number needed to treat of 4 to achieve at least a 20% improvement in BPRS scores with clozapine plus risperidone vs clozapine monotherapy. Across these studies, the average risperidone dosage was 4 mg/d, although using the lowest effective dosage is encouraged. A small number of RCTs and articles examining other APP combinations (Table 4)^30-33 have yielded mixed results.

Overall, APP appears to be well-tolerated, although it is associated with an increased risk of adverse effects, including sedation, extrapyramidal symptoms, hyperprolactinemia, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, anticholinergic effects, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.^23,24,34-36 Surprisingly, 1 literature review³⁶ found no association between APP and increased risk of orthostasis. Increased occurrence of sedation, hyperprolactinemia, and an elevated fasting blood glucose level have been found for clozapine plus risperidone compared with clozapine monotherapy.^24-26,28

Aripiprazole. Adjunctive aripiprazole, a dopamine partial agonist, could reduce elevated prolactin levels caused by other antipsychotics.³² In a study³⁷ of 56 patients taking haloperidol who had hyperprolactinemia, prolactin levels normalized in 88.5% of patients taking adjunctive aripiprazole, 30 mg/d, compared with 3.6% of those with added placebo. Furthermore, results from 2 RCTs^38,39 of patients taking clozapine or olanzapine suggest adjunctive aripiprazole could improve weight and metabolic profile. Therefore, adding aripiprazole to existing antipsychotic regimens is reasonable for patients with drug-induced symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or metabolic effects and who cannot be easily switched to another antipsychotic.

When to initiate
Most treatment guidelines^9-17 recommend clozapine only after monotherapy with at least 2 other antipsychotics fails. It is reasonable to add an antipsychotic to clozapine in patients who have shown a partial response to clozapine after a minimum of 3 months. Non-clozapine APP should be considered when:

• a patient derives no benefit from clozapine
• refuses clozapine
• clozapine is contraindicated
• APP is initiated to mitigate side effects from another antipsychotic.

Antipsychotics could take up to 16 weeks to achieve full efficacy,⁶ therefore, an adequate trial period within the target dosage range is advised for all antipsychotics (Table 5).^13,40

Why initiate
Based on available data, partial response to maximum recommended dosages of antipsychotic monotherapy, including clozapine, or inability to tolerate higher dosages, provides a reason for initiating APP. Non-clozapine APP generally should be considered only in patients who refuse, cannot tolerate, or do not respond to clozapine. Consider using validated rating scales to track treatment outcomes (ideally, a ≥20% symptomatic reduction on the BPRS or PANSS), although there is no formal guidance regarding their use or benefit in APP.

Summing up
APP is a fairly common prescribing practice, even though safety and efficacy data are mixed. The issue of APP has become prevalent enough that regulatory bodies are involved in its monitoring and documentation.⁴¹

Clozapine APP, especially with risperidone, has the most substantial evidence to support it. Although APP generally is well tolerated, the overall dearth of conclusive safety and efficacy data indicates that this practice should be reserved for patients who have not responded adequately to monotherapy, including clozapine. Adjunctive aripiprazole could be considered for addressing symptomatic hyperprolactinemia or other metabolic effects caused by other antipsychotics.

An adequate trial as long as 16 weeks is advised before assessing the efficacy of any antipsychotic regimen. If APP provides inadequate response, or if there is no clear indication for APP, consider switching the patient back to monotherapy.^42-44

Picking your practice’s legal structure is far less exciting than choosing which couch to furnish your office with, but the impact of your choice will last far longer than any office furniture. With effects on your liability, finances, and time, choosing the right arrangement is one of the most important business decisions you will make.

Choose a business structure
Solo practice? If you are in solo private practice, you should establish sole proprietorship to, at the least, reduce identity theft. Because insurance companies and government agencies will need your taxpayer identification number (TIN) for you to do business (and unless you fancy giving out your Social Security number freely), forming a sole proprietorship will grant you a business-unique TIN that you can give out. Establishing sole proprietorship is easy on the Internal Revenue Service Web site.

It also is advisable for you to open a business bank account just for your practice, for bookkeeping and auditing purposes.

Also, consider incorporating. You don’t have to have employees or partners to incorporate, and there are substantial benefits to doing so that should be considered.

Group practice? For a group practice, a fundamental rule is to not form a general partnership, because it exposes each member of the group to the liability and debts of the others. Instead, consider picking a limited liability structure or incorporating.

Incorporating. Every state recognizes corporations, although many require physicians to form “professional corporations” (PCs). There are 2 main types of corporations: “C” and “S.” A practice might elect to become an S corporation because it requires less paperwork—but it also means fewer tax benefits and profit or losses are passed through to your individual tax return. C corporations are taxed at corporate tax rates, but employees—including you, as owner—are eligible for more benefits, such as pre-tax commuter and parking reimbursement, flexible spending accounts for dependent care and health care, and pre-tax insurance premiums, to name a few.

Limited liability structure. State laws vary on which kind of limited liability structures are allowed but, typically, the options include forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Professional Limited Liability Company (PLLC), or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). In general, they provide similar liability protection as corporations, and their tax treatment is similar to either a “C” or “S” corporation, depending on state law or what tax structure its members elect. However, they may offer less paperwork and compliance requirements than corporations.

To incorporate or not?
The pros. Decide if it’s worth the time and effort to become a PC:

• Being a PC will not reduce your tax rate (that went away years ago) and cannot protect you from professional malpractice (referred to as “piercing the corporate veil”), but it will protect personal assets from risk of seizure if you incur a non-professional liability, such as for a patient slipping on a banana peel in the waiting room, or an employee lawsuit.
• If you operate more than 1 type of business, a PC may be useful to protect one business from the liability of the other. Or, if you are in a group practice comprising solo practitioners—not employees of a clinic—being a PC could shield you from the liability of your group or any of its members.
• If you have full-time employees (whether they are a family member or not), then you are all eligible for group health insurance, which is typically more affordable than if you have to procure your own policy.

The cons. Consider the downsides to being a corporation:

• It takes paperwork to set up a corporation, for which you typically need to engage a lawyer to complete and file.
• Your corporation might be required to pay a minimum state fee (in California, for example, the fee is $800 annually), and additional tax if you don’t “zero out” your profit and loss by the end of the year (ie, completely distribute all profits through payroll costs or business expenses).
• A corporation must keep corporate documents, although there are templates that one can follow, such as for board resolutions or keeping minutes of meetings.
• Your accountant will charge you more annually for any additional tax paperwork.

Crunch the numbers
Choosing to establish sole proprietorship or a “deeper” legal structure must be thought through wisely. Calculate the cost and benefit to your practice, and consider your risk tolerance for liability.

Once you make a decision, go get that couch!

Picking your practice’s legal structure is far less exciting than choosing which couch to furnish your office with, but the impact of your choice will last far longer than any office furniture. With effects on your liability, finances, and time, choosing the right arrangement is one of the most important business decisions you will make.

Choose a business structure
Solo practice? If you are in solo private practice, you should establish sole proprietorship to, at the least, reduce identity theft. Because insurance companies and government agencies will need your taxpayer identification number (TIN) for you to do business (and unless you fancy giving out your Social Security number freely), forming a sole proprietorship will grant you a business-unique TIN that you can give out. Establishing sole proprietorship is easy on the Internal Revenue Service Web site.

It also is advisable for you to open a business bank account just for your practice, for bookkeeping and auditing purposes.

Also, consider incorporating. You don’t have to have employees or partners to incorporate, and there are substantial benefits to doing so that should be considered.

Group practice? For a group practice, a fundamental rule is to not form a general partnership, because it exposes each member of the group to the liability and debts of the others. Instead, consider picking a limited liability structure or incorporating.

Incorporating. Every state recognizes corporations, although many require physicians to form “professional corporations” (PCs). There are 2 main types of corporations: “C” and “S.” A practice might elect to become an S corporation because it requires less paperwork—but it also means fewer tax benefits and profit or losses are passed through to your individual tax return. C corporations are taxed at corporate tax rates, but employees—including you, as owner—are eligible for more benefits, such as pre-tax commuter and parking reimbursement, flexible spending accounts for dependent care and health care, and pre-tax insurance premiums, to name a few.

Limited liability structure. State laws vary on which kind of limited liability structures are allowed but, typically, the options include forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Professional Limited Liability Company (PLLC), or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). In general, they provide similar liability protection as corporations, and their tax treatment is similar to either a “C” or “S” corporation, depending on state law or what tax structure its members elect. However, they may offer less paperwork and compliance requirements than corporations.

To incorporate or not?
The pros. Decide if it’s worth the time and effort to become a PC:

• Being a PC will not reduce your tax rate (that went away years ago) and cannot protect you from professional malpractice (referred to as “piercing the corporate veil”), but it will protect personal assets from risk of seizure if you incur a non-professional liability, such as for a patient slipping on a banana peel in the waiting room, or an employee lawsuit.
• If you operate more than 1 type of business, a PC may be useful to protect one business from the liability of the other. Or, if you are in a group practice comprising solo practitioners—not employees of a clinic—being a PC could shield you from the liability of your group or any of its members.
• If you have full-time employees (whether they are a family member or not), then you are all eligible for group health insurance, which is typically more affordable than if you have to procure your own policy.

The cons. Consider the downsides to being a corporation:

• It takes paperwork to set up a corporation, for which you typically need to engage a lawyer to complete and file.
• Your corporation might be required to pay a minimum state fee (in California, for example, the fee is $800 annually), and additional tax if you don’t “zero out” your profit and loss by the end of the year (ie, completely distribute all profits through payroll costs or business expenses).
• A corporation must keep corporate documents, although there are templates that one can follow, such as for board resolutions or keeping minutes of meetings.
• Your accountant will charge you more annually for any additional tax paperwork.

Crunch the numbers
Choosing to establish sole proprietorship or a “deeper” legal structure must be thought through wisely. Calculate the cost and benefit to your practice, and consider your risk tolerance for liability.

Once you make a decision, go get that couch!

Picking your practice’s legal structure is far less exciting than choosing which couch to furnish your office with, but the impact of your choice will last far longer than any office furniture. With effects on your liability, finances, and time, choosing the right arrangement is one of the most important business decisions you will make.

Choose a business structure
Solo practice? If you are in solo private practice, you should establish sole proprietorship to, at the least, reduce identity theft. Because insurance companies and government agencies will need your taxpayer identification number (TIN) for you to do business (and unless you fancy giving out your Social Security number freely), forming a sole proprietorship will grant you a business-unique TIN that you can give out. Establishing sole proprietorship is easy on the Internal Revenue Service Web site.

It also is advisable for you to open a business bank account just for your practice, for bookkeeping and auditing purposes.

Also, consider incorporating. You don’t have to have employees or partners to incorporate, and there are substantial benefits to doing so that should be considered.

Group practice? For a group practice, a fundamental rule is to not form a general partnership, because it exposes each member of the group to the liability and debts of the others. Instead, consider picking a limited liability structure or incorporating.

Incorporating. Every state recognizes corporations, although many require physicians to form “professional corporations” (PCs). There are 2 main types of corporations: “C” and “S.” A practice might elect to become an S corporation because it requires less paperwork—but it also means fewer tax benefits and profit or losses are passed through to your individual tax return. C corporations are taxed at corporate tax rates, but employees—including you, as owner—are eligible for more benefits, such as pre-tax commuter and parking reimbursement, flexible spending accounts for dependent care and health care, and pre-tax insurance premiums, to name a few.

Limited liability structure. State laws vary on which kind of limited liability structures are allowed but, typically, the options include forming a Limited Liability Company (LLC), Professional Limited Liability Company (PLLC), or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). In general, they provide similar liability protection as corporations, and their tax treatment is similar to either a “C” or “S” corporation, depending on state law or what tax structure its members elect. However, they may offer less paperwork and compliance requirements than corporations.

To incorporate or not?
The pros. Decide if it’s worth the time and effort to become a PC:

• Being a PC will not reduce your tax rate (that went away years ago) and cannot protect you from professional malpractice (referred to as “piercing the corporate veil”), but it will protect personal assets from risk of seizure if you incur a non-professional liability, such as for a patient slipping on a banana peel in the waiting room, or an employee lawsuit.
• If you operate more than 1 type of business, a PC may be useful to protect one business from the liability of the other. Or, if you are in a group practice comprising solo practitioners—not employees of a clinic—being a PC could shield you from the liability of your group or any of its members.
• If you have full-time employees (whether they are a family member or not), then you are all eligible for group health insurance, which is typically more affordable than if you have to procure your own policy.

The cons. Consider the downsides to being a corporation:

• It takes paperwork to set up a corporation, for which you typically need to engage a lawyer to complete and file.
• Your corporation might be required to pay a minimum state fee (in California, for example, the fee is $800 annually), and additional tax if you don’t “zero out” your profit and loss by the end of the year (ie, completely distribute all profits through payroll costs or business expenses).
• A corporation must keep corporate documents, although there are templates that one can follow, such as for board resolutions or keeping minutes of meetings.
• Your accountant will charge you more annually for any additional tax paperwork.

Crunch the numbers
Choosing to establish sole proprietorship or a “deeper” legal structure must be thought through wisely. Calculate the cost and benefit to your practice, and consider your risk tolerance for liability.

Once you make a decision, go get that couch!