User login
Antioxidants may ease anxiety and depression
The prevalence of anxiety and depression has increased worldwide, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Therefore, identifying specific interventions that improve depressive status is critical for public health policy,” wrote Huan Wang, MD, of First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China, and colleagues.
Recent evidence suggests that modifiable lifestyle factors, including nutrition, may have a positive impact on symptoms of anxiety and depression, and observational studies have shown that antioxidant supplements affect depressive status, but data from randomized, controlled trials are limited by small sample sizes, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies with a total of 4,049 patients. Of these, 2,004 received antioxidant supplements and 2,045 received a placebo supplement or no supplements. The median treatment duration was 11 weeks; treatment durations ranged from 2 weeks to 2 years. All 52 studies addressed the effect of antioxidants on depressive status, and 21 studies also assessed anxiety status. The studies used a range of depression scales, including the Beck Depression Inventory, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Overall, the meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in depressive status associated with antioxidant supplement use (standardized mean difference, 0.60; P < .00001). When broken down by supplement, significant positive effects appeared for magnesium (SMD = 0.16; P = .03), zinc (SMD = 0.59; P = .01), selenium (SMD = 0.33; P = .009), CoQ10 (SMD = 0.97; P = .05), tea and coffee (SMD = 1.15; P = .001) and crocin (MD = 6.04; P < .00001).
As a secondary outcome, antioxidant supplementation had a significantly positive effect on anxiety (SMD = 0.40; P < .00001).
The mechanism of action for the effect of antioxidants remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion, but, “Depriving or boosting the supply of food components with antioxidant capabilities might worsen or lessen oxidative stress,” they said.
The researchers attempted a subgroup analysis across countries, and found that, while antioxidant supplementation improved depressive status in populations from Iran, China, and Italy, “no significant improvement was found in the United States, Australia, Italy and other countries.” The reasons for this difference might be related to fewer studies from these countries, or “the improvement brought about by antioxidants might be particularly pronounced in people with significant depression and higher depression scores,” they wrote. “Studies have shown that Asian countries have fewer psychiatrists and more expensive treatments,” they added.
The findings were limited by several factors including the inability to include all types of antioxidant supplements, the range of depression rating scales, and insufficient subgroup analysis of the range of populations from the included studies, the researchers noted.
“Additional data from large clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of antioxidant supplements in improving depressive status,” they said. However, the results suggest that antioxidants may play a role as an adjunct treatment to conventional antidepressants, they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The prevalence of anxiety and depression has increased worldwide, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Therefore, identifying specific interventions that improve depressive status is critical for public health policy,” wrote Huan Wang, MD, of First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China, and colleagues.
Recent evidence suggests that modifiable lifestyle factors, including nutrition, may have a positive impact on symptoms of anxiety and depression, and observational studies have shown that antioxidant supplements affect depressive status, but data from randomized, controlled trials are limited by small sample sizes, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies with a total of 4,049 patients. Of these, 2,004 received antioxidant supplements and 2,045 received a placebo supplement or no supplements. The median treatment duration was 11 weeks; treatment durations ranged from 2 weeks to 2 years. All 52 studies addressed the effect of antioxidants on depressive status, and 21 studies also assessed anxiety status. The studies used a range of depression scales, including the Beck Depression Inventory, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Overall, the meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in depressive status associated with antioxidant supplement use (standardized mean difference, 0.60; P < .00001). When broken down by supplement, significant positive effects appeared for magnesium (SMD = 0.16; P = .03), zinc (SMD = 0.59; P = .01), selenium (SMD = 0.33; P = .009), CoQ10 (SMD = 0.97; P = .05), tea and coffee (SMD = 1.15; P = .001) and crocin (MD = 6.04; P < .00001).
As a secondary outcome, antioxidant supplementation had a significantly positive effect on anxiety (SMD = 0.40; P < .00001).
The mechanism of action for the effect of antioxidants remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion, but, “Depriving or boosting the supply of food components with antioxidant capabilities might worsen or lessen oxidative stress,” they said.
The researchers attempted a subgroup analysis across countries, and found that, while antioxidant supplementation improved depressive status in populations from Iran, China, and Italy, “no significant improvement was found in the United States, Australia, Italy and other countries.” The reasons for this difference might be related to fewer studies from these countries, or “the improvement brought about by antioxidants might be particularly pronounced in people with significant depression and higher depression scores,” they wrote. “Studies have shown that Asian countries have fewer psychiatrists and more expensive treatments,” they added.
The findings were limited by several factors including the inability to include all types of antioxidant supplements, the range of depression rating scales, and insufficient subgroup analysis of the range of populations from the included studies, the researchers noted.
“Additional data from large clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of antioxidant supplements in improving depressive status,” they said. However, the results suggest that antioxidants may play a role as an adjunct treatment to conventional antidepressants, they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The prevalence of anxiety and depression has increased worldwide, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Therefore, identifying specific interventions that improve depressive status is critical for public health policy,” wrote Huan Wang, MD, of First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China, and colleagues.
Recent evidence suggests that modifiable lifestyle factors, including nutrition, may have a positive impact on symptoms of anxiety and depression, and observational studies have shown that antioxidant supplements affect depressive status, but data from randomized, controlled trials are limited by small sample sizes, they wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies with a total of 4,049 patients. Of these, 2,004 received antioxidant supplements and 2,045 received a placebo supplement or no supplements. The median treatment duration was 11 weeks; treatment durations ranged from 2 weeks to 2 years. All 52 studies addressed the effect of antioxidants on depressive status, and 21 studies also assessed anxiety status. The studies used a range of depression scales, including the Beck Depression Inventory, the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
Overall, the meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in depressive status associated with antioxidant supplement use (standardized mean difference, 0.60; P < .00001). When broken down by supplement, significant positive effects appeared for magnesium (SMD = 0.16; P = .03), zinc (SMD = 0.59; P = .01), selenium (SMD = 0.33; P = .009), CoQ10 (SMD = 0.97; P = .05), tea and coffee (SMD = 1.15; P = .001) and crocin (MD = 6.04; P < .00001).
As a secondary outcome, antioxidant supplementation had a significantly positive effect on anxiety (SMD = 0.40; P < .00001).
The mechanism of action for the effect of antioxidants remains unclear, the researchers wrote in their discussion, but, “Depriving or boosting the supply of food components with antioxidant capabilities might worsen or lessen oxidative stress,” they said.
The researchers attempted a subgroup analysis across countries, and found that, while antioxidant supplementation improved depressive status in populations from Iran, China, and Italy, “no significant improvement was found in the United States, Australia, Italy and other countries.” The reasons for this difference might be related to fewer studies from these countries, or “the improvement brought about by antioxidants might be particularly pronounced in people with significant depression and higher depression scores,” they wrote. “Studies have shown that Asian countries have fewer psychiatrists and more expensive treatments,” they added.
The findings were limited by several factors including the inability to include all types of antioxidant supplements, the range of depression rating scales, and insufficient subgroup analysis of the range of populations from the included studies, the researchers noted.
“Additional data from large clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of antioxidant supplements in improving depressive status,” they said. However, the results suggest that antioxidants may play a role as an adjunct treatment to conventional antidepressants, they concluded.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
Strong support for CBT as first-line treatment for insomnia in seniors
NEW ORLEANS –
“The lack of awareness among clinicians who take care of older adults that CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is an effective treatment for insomnia is an issue,” Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry, Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., told this news organization.
Dr. Tampi was among the speakers during a session as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting addressing the complex challenges of treating insomnia in older patients, who tend to have higher rates of insomnia than their younger counterparts.
The prevalence of insomnia in older adults is estimated to be 20%-40%, and medication is frequently the first treatment choice, a less than ideal approach, said Dr. Tampi.
“Prescribing sedatives and hypnotics, which can cause severe adverse effects, without a thorough assessment that includes comorbidities that may be causing the insomnia” is among the biggest mistakes clinicians make in the treatment of insomnia in older patients, Dr. Tampi said in an interview.
“It’s our duty as providers to first take a good assessment, talk about polymorbidity, and try to address those conditions, and judiciously use medications in conjunction with at least components of CBT-I,” he said.
Long-term safety, efficacy unclear
About one-third of older adults take at least one form of pharmacological treatment for insomnia symptoms, said Ebony Dix, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a separate talk during the session. This, despite the low-risk profile of CBT and recommendations from various medical societies that CBT should be tried first.
Dr. Dix noted that medications approved for insomnia by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including melatonin receptor agonists, heterocyclics, and dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), can play an important role in the short-term management of insomnia, but their long-term effects are unknown.
“Pharmacotherapeutic agents may be effective in the short term, but there is a lack of sufficient, statistically significant data to support the long-term safety and efficacy of any [sleep] medication, especially in aging adults, due to the impact of hypnotic drugs on sleep architecture, the impact of aging on pharmacokinetics, as well as polypharmacy and drug-to-drug interactions,” Dr. Dix said. She noted that clinical trials of insomnia drugs rarely include geriatric patients.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends CBT-I as first-line treatment for insomnia, with the key benefit being its exemplary safety profile, said Shilpa Srinivasan, MD, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who also presented during the session.
“The biggest [attribute] of CBT-I management strategies is the low risk of side effects,” she said. “How many medications can we say that about?”
The CBT-I intervention includes a focus on key components of lifestyle and mental health issues to improve sleep. These include the following:
- Strictly restricting sleep hours for bedtime and arising (with napping discouraged).
- Control of stimulus to disrupt falling asleep.
- Cognitive therapy to identify and replace maladaptive beliefs.
- Control of sleep hygiene for optimal sleep.
- Relaxation training.
Keys to success
Dr. Srinivasan noted one recent study of CBT-I among patients aged 60 and older with insomnia and depression. The 156 participants randomized to receive weekly 120-minute CBT-I sessions over 2 months were significantly less likely to develop new or recurrent major depression versus their counterparts randomized to receive sleep education (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .02).
However, CBT-I is more labor intensive than medication and requires provider training and motivation, and commitment on the part of the patient, to be successful.
“We really need to ensure that even when patients are receiving pharmacologic interventions for insomnia that we provide psychoeducation. At the end of the day, some of these nonpharmacologic components can make or break the success of pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
Whether using CBT-I alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, the intervention does not necessarily have to include all components to be beneficial, she said.
“I think one of the challenges in incorporating CBT-I is the misconception that it is an all-or-nothing approach wherein every modality must be utilized,” she said. “While multicomponent CBT-I has been shown to be effective, the individual components can be incorporated into patient encounters in a stepped approach.”
Informing patients that they have options other than medications and involving them in decision-making is key, she added.
“In the case of insomnia, this is particularly relevant because of the physical and emotional distress that it causes,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “Patients often seek over-the-counter medications or other nonprescribed agents to try to obtain relief even before seeking treatment in a health care setting. There is less awareness about evidence-based and effective nonpharmacologic treatments such as CBT-I.”
Dr. Tampi, Dr. Dix, and Dr. Srinivasan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“The lack of awareness among clinicians who take care of older adults that CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is an effective treatment for insomnia is an issue,” Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry, Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., told this news organization.
Dr. Tampi was among the speakers during a session as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting addressing the complex challenges of treating insomnia in older patients, who tend to have higher rates of insomnia than their younger counterparts.
The prevalence of insomnia in older adults is estimated to be 20%-40%, and medication is frequently the first treatment choice, a less than ideal approach, said Dr. Tampi.
“Prescribing sedatives and hypnotics, which can cause severe adverse effects, without a thorough assessment that includes comorbidities that may be causing the insomnia” is among the biggest mistakes clinicians make in the treatment of insomnia in older patients, Dr. Tampi said in an interview.
“It’s our duty as providers to first take a good assessment, talk about polymorbidity, and try to address those conditions, and judiciously use medications in conjunction with at least components of CBT-I,” he said.
Long-term safety, efficacy unclear
About one-third of older adults take at least one form of pharmacological treatment for insomnia symptoms, said Ebony Dix, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a separate talk during the session. This, despite the low-risk profile of CBT and recommendations from various medical societies that CBT should be tried first.
Dr. Dix noted that medications approved for insomnia by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including melatonin receptor agonists, heterocyclics, and dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), can play an important role in the short-term management of insomnia, but their long-term effects are unknown.
“Pharmacotherapeutic agents may be effective in the short term, but there is a lack of sufficient, statistically significant data to support the long-term safety and efficacy of any [sleep] medication, especially in aging adults, due to the impact of hypnotic drugs on sleep architecture, the impact of aging on pharmacokinetics, as well as polypharmacy and drug-to-drug interactions,” Dr. Dix said. She noted that clinical trials of insomnia drugs rarely include geriatric patients.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends CBT-I as first-line treatment for insomnia, with the key benefit being its exemplary safety profile, said Shilpa Srinivasan, MD, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who also presented during the session.
“The biggest [attribute] of CBT-I management strategies is the low risk of side effects,” she said. “How many medications can we say that about?”
The CBT-I intervention includes a focus on key components of lifestyle and mental health issues to improve sleep. These include the following:
- Strictly restricting sleep hours for bedtime and arising (with napping discouraged).
- Control of stimulus to disrupt falling asleep.
- Cognitive therapy to identify and replace maladaptive beliefs.
- Control of sleep hygiene for optimal sleep.
- Relaxation training.
Keys to success
Dr. Srinivasan noted one recent study of CBT-I among patients aged 60 and older with insomnia and depression. The 156 participants randomized to receive weekly 120-minute CBT-I sessions over 2 months were significantly less likely to develop new or recurrent major depression versus their counterparts randomized to receive sleep education (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .02).
However, CBT-I is more labor intensive than medication and requires provider training and motivation, and commitment on the part of the patient, to be successful.
“We really need to ensure that even when patients are receiving pharmacologic interventions for insomnia that we provide psychoeducation. At the end of the day, some of these nonpharmacologic components can make or break the success of pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
Whether using CBT-I alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, the intervention does not necessarily have to include all components to be beneficial, she said.
“I think one of the challenges in incorporating CBT-I is the misconception that it is an all-or-nothing approach wherein every modality must be utilized,” she said. “While multicomponent CBT-I has been shown to be effective, the individual components can be incorporated into patient encounters in a stepped approach.”
Informing patients that they have options other than medications and involving them in decision-making is key, she added.
“In the case of insomnia, this is particularly relevant because of the physical and emotional distress that it causes,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “Patients often seek over-the-counter medications or other nonprescribed agents to try to obtain relief even before seeking treatment in a health care setting. There is less awareness about evidence-based and effective nonpharmacologic treatments such as CBT-I.”
Dr. Tampi, Dr. Dix, and Dr. Srinivasan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“The lack of awareness among clinicians who take care of older adults that CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is an effective treatment for insomnia is an issue,” Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry, Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., told this news organization.
Dr. Tampi was among the speakers during a session as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting addressing the complex challenges of treating insomnia in older patients, who tend to have higher rates of insomnia than their younger counterparts.
The prevalence of insomnia in older adults is estimated to be 20%-40%, and medication is frequently the first treatment choice, a less than ideal approach, said Dr. Tampi.
“Prescribing sedatives and hypnotics, which can cause severe adverse effects, without a thorough assessment that includes comorbidities that may be causing the insomnia” is among the biggest mistakes clinicians make in the treatment of insomnia in older patients, Dr. Tampi said in an interview.
“It’s our duty as providers to first take a good assessment, talk about polymorbidity, and try to address those conditions, and judiciously use medications in conjunction with at least components of CBT-I,” he said.
Long-term safety, efficacy unclear
About one-third of older adults take at least one form of pharmacological treatment for insomnia symptoms, said Ebony Dix, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a separate talk during the session. This, despite the low-risk profile of CBT and recommendations from various medical societies that CBT should be tried first.
Dr. Dix noted that medications approved for insomnia by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including melatonin receptor agonists, heterocyclics, and dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs), can play an important role in the short-term management of insomnia, but their long-term effects are unknown.
“Pharmacotherapeutic agents may be effective in the short term, but there is a lack of sufficient, statistically significant data to support the long-term safety and efficacy of any [sleep] medication, especially in aging adults, due to the impact of hypnotic drugs on sleep architecture, the impact of aging on pharmacokinetics, as well as polypharmacy and drug-to-drug interactions,” Dr. Dix said. She noted that clinical trials of insomnia drugs rarely include geriatric patients.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends CBT-I as first-line treatment for insomnia, with the key benefit being its exemplary safety profile, said Shilpa Srinivasan, MD, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, who also presented during the session.
“The biggest [attribute] of CBT-I management strategies is the low risk of side effects,” she said. “How many medications can we say that about?”
The CBT-I intervention includes a focus on key components of lifestyle and mental health issues to improve sleep. These include the following:
- Strictly restricting sleep hours for bedtime and arising (with napping discouraged).
- Control of stimulus to disrupt falling asleep.
- Cognitive therapy to identify and replace maladaptive beliefs.
- Control of sleep hygiene for optimal sleep.
- Relaxation training.
Keys to success
Dr. Srinivasan noted one recent study of CBT-I among patients aged 60 and older with insomnia and depression. The 156 participants randomized to receive weekly 120-minute CBT-I sessions over 2 months were significantly less likely to develop new or recurrent major depression versus their counterparts randomized to receive sleep education (hazard ratio, 0.51; P = .02).
However, CBT-I is more labor intensive than medication and requires provider training and motivation, and commitment on the part of the patient, to be successful.
“We really need to ensure that even when patients are receiving pharmacologic interventions for insomnia that we provide psychoeducation. At the end of the day, some of these nonpharmacologic components can make or break the success of pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Srinivasan.
Whether using CBT-I alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, the intervention does not necessarily have to include all components to be beneficial, she said.
“I think one of the challenges in incorporating CBT-I is the misconception that it is an all-or-nothing approach wherein every modality must be utilized,” she said. “While multicomponent CBT-I has been shown to be effective, the individual components can be incorporated into patient encounters in a stepped approach.”
Informing patients that they have options other than medications and involving them in decision-making is key, she added.
“In the case of insomnia, this is particularly relevant because of the physical and emotional distress that it causes,” Dr. Srinivasan said. “Patients often seek over-the-counter medications or other nonprescribed agents to try to obtain relief even before seeking treatment in a health care setting. There is less awareness about evidence-based and effective nonpharmacologic treatments such as CBT-I.”
Dr. Tampi, Dr. Dix, and Dr. Srinivasan have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAGP 2023
New data on IV ketamine for resistant depression in the elderly
NEW ORLEANS –
“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.
The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.
“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Nasal vs. IV administration
Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.
In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.
A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.
In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.
To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.
Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.
Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.
The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).
“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.
Open-label trial results
In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.
The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.
After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.
Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.
These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.
The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.
In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.
Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.
Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.
“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.
“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”
Unsettling for some older patients
George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.
“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”
However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.
“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.
The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.
The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.
“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Nasal vs. IV administration
Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.
In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.
A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.
In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.
To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.
Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.
Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.
The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).
“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.
Open-label trial results
In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.
The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.
After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.
Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.
These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.
The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.
In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.
Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.
Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.
“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.
“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”
Unsettling for some older patients
George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.
“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”
However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.
“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.
The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.
The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.
“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Nasal vs. IV administration
Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.
In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.
A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.
In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.
To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.
Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.
Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.
The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).
“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.
Open-label trial results
In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.
The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.
After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.
Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.
These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.
The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.
In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.
Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.
Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.
“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.
“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”
Unsettling for some older patients
George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.
“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”
However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.
“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.
The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAGP 2023
Add-on antipsychotic beats switching meds in older adults with resistant depression
NEW ORLEANS –
“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.
“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.
The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Need for safe treatment options
Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.
To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).
After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.
The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.
Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.
The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.
A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).
Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.
Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.
“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
Practice changing?
In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”
However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.
Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole.
With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.
“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.
Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 
“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.
“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”
While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.
“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said.
The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.
“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.
The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Need for safe treatment options
Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.
To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).
After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.
The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.
Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.
The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.
A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).
Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.
Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.
“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
Practice changing?
In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”
However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.
Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole.
With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.
“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.
Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression.
“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.
“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”
While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.
“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said.
The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS –
“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.
“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.
The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Need for safe treatment options
Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.
To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).
After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.
The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.
Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.
The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.
A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).
Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.
Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.
“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
Practice changing?
In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”
However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.
Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole.
With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.
“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.
Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression.
“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.
“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”
While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.
“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said.
The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAGP 2023
Opioid overdose is an important cause of postpartum death
(OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
Nearly 5 million deliveries studied
Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.
They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.
Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).
Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
Medication significantly lowers death risk
The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.
For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).
As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.
“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications
She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.
Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.
On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.
Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.
Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.
But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
Getting naloxone to patients, families
One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.
However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.
“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”
Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.
He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.
“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.
The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.
“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”
Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
Problem probably understated
He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.
“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.
Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.
In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.
“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”
Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
(OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
Nearly 5 million deliveries studied
Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.
They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.
Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).
Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
Medication significantly lowers death risk
The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.
For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).
As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.
“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications
She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.
Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.
On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.
Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.
Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.
But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
Getting naloxone to patients, families
One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.
However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.
“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”
Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.
He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.
“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.
The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.
“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”
Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
Problem probably understated
He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.
“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.
Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.
In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.
“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”
Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
(OUD), according to research published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Opioid overdose deaths account for up to 10% of pregnancy-associated deaths in the United States, and 75% of the deliveries of women with OUD are covered by Medicaid, according to lead author Elizabeth Suarez, PhD, MPH, with the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, and colleagues.
Nearly 5 million deliveries studied
Researchers studied claims data from Medicaid and the National Death Index database in the United States from 2006 to 2013 for 4,972,061 deliveries. They also identified a subgroup of women with a documented history of OUD in the 3 months before delivery.
They found the incidence of postpartum opioid overdose deaths was 5.4 per 100,000 deliveries (95% confidence interval, 4.5-6.4) among all in the study and 118 per 100,000 (95% CI, 84-163) among individuals with OUD.
Incidence of all-cause postpartum death was six times higher in women with OUD than in all the women studied. Common causes of death of those with OUD were other drug- and alcohol-related deaths (47/100,000); suicide (26/100,000); and other injuries, including accidents and falls (33/100,000).
Risk factors strongly linked with postpartum opioid overdose death included mental health and other substance use disorders.
Medication significantly lowers death risk
The authors also documented the benefit of buprenorphine or methadone for OUD.
For women with OUD who used medication to treat OUD post partum, odds of opioid overdose death were 60% lower (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-0.9).
As important as use of medication, Marcela Smid, MD, MS, writes in an accompanying editorial, is noting that 80% of the women in this study who died of opioid overdoses had contact with a health care provider before death.
“Both of these results indicate that we have the means and opportunity to prevent these deaths,” writes Dr. Smid, with the division of maternal fetal medicine, University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City.
Dismal numbers on ob.gyns. trained to prescribe medications
She points out some barriers, however. Most clinicians, she notes, lack time and training to prescribe buprenorphine, and in 2019, fewer than 2% of ob.gyns. who accept Medicaid were able to prescribe it.
Her charge to ob.gyns.: “We need to help identify individuals who are at high risk of OUD or opioid overdose by screening.” A validated screening tool should be used at prenatal and postpartum appointments.
On a bigger scale, she urges Medicaid to be expanded for a full year post partum through the American Rescue Act’s State Plan Amendment, something only 28 states and Washington, D.C., have done so far.
Dr. Smid points out some good news, however: President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023, which eliminated the “X” waiver.
Now all clinicians who have a Drug Enforcement Administration registration that includes Schedule III authority can prescribe buprenorphine for OUD if applicable state law allows it.
But that calls for medical schools and residency programs to prioritize addiction medicine as a core competency, Dr. Smid says.
Getting naloxone to patients, families
One of the potential interventions the study authors suggest is providing naloxone prescriptions and training to pregnant and postpartum women who have a substance use history and to their partners and significant others.
However, Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, told this publication, “It’s one thing to write a prescription; it’s another thing for the person to actually get the medication.” He is medical director of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, an ob.gyn. who specializes in addiction medicine.
“What can we do?” We can think about how to get naloxone into people’s hands at discharge from the hospital after they give birth, instead of prescribing. That would mean that health systems need to prioritize this, he said. “We give people discharge medications all the time.”
Still, naloxone can’t be seen as the answer, he said.
He compares it to defibrillators in public places, which are for rescues, not reversing a population problem.
“Some people think that naloxone reversals are doing something about OUD. It’s doing about as much about OUD as defibrillators do for cardiovascular disease,” he said.
The best help, he says, will be continuation of treatment.
“Addiction is a chronic condition,” he says, “but often we only provide episodic care. We see that particularly in pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is finished, there’s not categorical continuation of insurance.”
Even if you do have insurance, it’s hard to find a clinic that’s family friendly, he notes. “You might not feel comfortable taking your newborn and standing in line in the morning to get your daily methodone dose. We have to make those environments more welcoming.”
Problem probably understated
He also says that though the study was well done given the data available, he’s frustrated that researchers still have to depend on billing data and can’t capture factors such as child care availability, living wages, and continuation of health insurance. Additionally, not everyone is coded correctly for OUD.
“It’s all Medicaid, so it’s only people who continued with care,” he pointed out. That means these numbers may actually underrepresent the problem.
Still, he says it’s important to realize the magnitude of deaths this study does highlight in this population.
In people with OUD in the postpartum period, the deaths are more than 1 in 1,000.
“That should be alarming,” Dr. Terplan said. “That’s a very big number from a public health perspective.”
Coauthor Kathryn J. Gray received payment from Aetion Inc., Roche, and BillionToOne. Funds were paid to the University of Utah for Dr. Smid from Alydia Inc. for being the site principal investigator for a study of the JADA device, and from Gilead for Dr. Smid’s study of hepatitis C in pregnancy; she was also a consultant for Organon and Rhia Ventures. Dr. Terplan reports no relevant financial relationships.
FROM OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
FDA moves to stop the spread of illicit ‘tranq’ in the U.S.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DEA proposals on telehealth for controlled substances draw fire
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinician violence: Virtual reality to the rescue?
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Antipsychotic cuts Alzheimer’s-related agitation
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
AT AAGP 2023
Buprenorphine proves effective for fentanyl users in the ED
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN