Schizophrenia & Other Psychotic Disorders

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Psychosocial interventions, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), are associated with enhanced immune system function, new research suggests.

Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 56 randomized controlled trials and more than 4,000 participants showed that over time, psychosocial interventions appeared to augment beneficial immune system function while concurrently decreasing harmful immune system function in comparison with control conditions.

“These associations were most reliable for cognitive-behavioral therapy and multiple or combined interventions and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers, which are key indicators of inflammation in the body,” study investigator George M. Slavich, PhD, said in an interview.

“The analysis helps address the question of which types of psychosocial interventions are most consistently associated with changes in immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom. This knowledge could, in turn, be used to inform research efforts and public policy aimed at using psychosocial interventions to improve immune-related health outcomes,” added Dr. Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research, University of California, Los Angeles.

The study was published online June 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Link to serious physical, mental illnesses

There is substantial evidence that the immune system plays a role in a variety of mental and physical health problems. Such problems include anxiety disorders, depression, suicide, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases. It has been recently suggested that more than half of all deaths worldwide are attributable to inflammation-related conditions.

Although pharmacologic interventions can play a role in addressing inflammation, they are not without drawbacks, most notably, cost and adverse side effects.

The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and other groups have emphasized the importance of addressing global disease burden through psychosocial interventions when possible.

Such recommendations are supported by scientific evidence. Previous research has shown that immune system processes are influenced by a variety of social, neurocognitive, and behavioral factors.

Given such findings, researchers have examined the effects of interventions that reduce stress or bolster psychological resources on immune system function.

However, such research has yielded conflicting findings. Some studies show that psychosocial interventions clearly enhance immunity, whereas others do not.

In addition, questions remain regarding which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom.

“Research has shown that psychological factors – such as life stress, negative emotions, and social support – are associated with changes in immune system function,” Dr. Slavich noted.

“In addition, there is growing appreciation that immune system processes involved in inflammation may contribute to peoples’ risk for several major mental and physical health problems, including anxiety disorders, depression, heart disease, and autoimmune and neurodegenerative disorders.”
 

First study of its kind

To shed light on these potential links, the researchers conducted what they believe is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the effects of psychosocial interventions on immune system outcomes.

As part of the review, Dr. Slavich and colleagues estimated the associations between eight psychosocial interventions and seven markers of immune system function.

The eight psychosocial interventions were behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, CBT, CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation.

The seven immune outcomes that might be influenced by these interventions are proinflammatory cytokines and markers, anti-inflammatory cytokines, antibodies, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes.

The researchers also examined nine potential factors that might moderate the associations between psychosocial interventions and immune system function.

They searched a variety of databases for all relevant randomized controlled trials published through Dec. 31, 2018. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included a psychosocial intervention and immune outcome, as well as preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments.

The researchers identified 4,621 studies. Of these studies, 62 were eligible for inclusion; 56, which included 4,060 patients, were included in the final meta-analysis.

Results showed that psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (P < .001). There was relatively low heterogeneity between studies in these effect sizes, which, the investigators said, indicates that the association was relatively consistent across studies and conditions.

The meta-analysis showed that individuals who were assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition demonstrated a 14.7% improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7%–23.8%) in beneficial immune system function compared with their counterparts who were assigned to a control condition.

Similarly, participants who received psychosocial interventions demonstrated an 18.0% decrease (95% CI, 7.2%–28.8%) in harmful immune system function over time.

A standout

Regarding the effect of the type of intervention on the association, only CBT (31 studies; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (seven studies; P = .01) were significantly associated with changes in immune system outcomes.

The analysis also found that interventions that included a group component were more consistently associated with enhanced immune function than were those that did not include a group component. Nevertheless, this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .06).

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, the analysis also revealed that intervention length did not moderate the association between psychosocial interventions and immune system function (P = .93).

With respect to the type of immune marker studied, the meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions had significantly different associations with the various immune markers studied. Of the seven immune outcomes investigated, only proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels (33 studies; P < .001) and immune cell counts (27 studies; P < .001) were significantly associated with the psychosocial interventions examined.

The associations between psychosocial intervention and immune system function persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration.

These results suggest that psychosocial interventions – particularly CBT and multiple or combined psychotherapeutic modalities – may play an important role in improving immune-related health outcomes.

Such interventions may not only be effective, they may also prove to be affordable alternatives to current therapeutic options. The mean length of a CBT intervention in the meta-analysis was 10.4 weeks, which the investigators equated with a total cost of $1,560 per patient.

“By comparison, the cost of using infliximab to reduce inflammation in persons with an autoimmune disorder is approximately $25,000 per patient per year,” they wrote.

“The results suggest the possibility that psychotherapy may be helpful for reducing inflammation and improving immune-related health in certain circumstances,” Dr. Slavich concluded. “However, the studies that we examined differed in terms of their quality, and we did not examine health outcomes in the present investigation.

“Therefore, more research needs to be done to determine how the present findings might be translated into treatment options or public policy.”
 

A path to better health

In an accompanying editorial, Veronika Engert, PhD, Joshua A. Grant, PhD, and Bernhard Strauss, PhD, noted that although infectious disease was once the primary cause of death in society, it has been supplanted by other complex and chronic illnesses, which often do not follow simple cause-and-effect associations.

“Rather,” they wrote, “these illnesses develop from a complex milieu of biological, psychological, and social factors that may also influence the disease progress and its prognosis. Against this backdrop, the meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues is an important confirmation of the biopsychosocial model.”

The editorialists explained that recent psychophysiological, neurobiological, and epigenetic research offers a glimpse into the relationship between psychological and social factors in pathogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors noted that a comprehensive examination of the potential effects of psychosocial interventions on immune parameters in various physical health conditions has been lacking.

“The evidence provided by Shields et al. is exactly what is needed to more fully shift treatment from an illness-centered to a patient-centered approach,” they wrote. “To that end, this meta-analysis may serve as a guide for policy makers aiming to improve immune-associated health.”

The research was supported by a Society in Science–Branco Weiss Fellowship, Brain and Behavior Research, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Slavich, Dr. Engert, Dr. Grant, and Dr. Strauss have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Melissa R. Arbuckle, MD: Hi. I’m Dr. Melissa Arbuckle, vice chair for education and training in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. I’m reporting on behalf of Medscape and our Columbia Psychiatry partnership. Today we’ll be discussing biomarkers with Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman. Welcome.

Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD: Thanks, Melissa. Great to be here to talk about a subject that is near and dear to my heart.



Dr. Arbuckle: Dr. Lieberman is chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia and is also director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Tell us about biomarkers and psychiatry, Dr Lieberman.

Dr. Lieberman: It would be nice if we had some! But first let me tell you what a biomarker is and what it would do for us. A biomarker is a biologic measure, a biologic feature, whether it’s blood pressure, pulse rate, an analyte in blood or cerebrospinal fluid, or a feature of an MRI or PET scan image of the brain that has diagnostic, prognostic, or theragnostic significance. A biomarker identifies an individual with symptoms of a specific disorder, indicates that they have this disorder, and can suggest a particular prognosis – less severe, more severe – or specify which treatment a person would likely respond to. For the entire history of our discipline, as long as physicians have studied mental illness, we have not had a diagnostic test for it. It’s a clinical diagnosis.

All illnesses in medicine began with clinical diagnosis: seizure disorder, epilepsy, was falling sickness; congestive heart failure was dropsy; for diabetes you tasted the urine to see if it was sweet or watery. But when we began to measure glucose and hemoglobin A1c, or when we developed the electrocardiogram to measure heart rhythms, and the electroencephalogram to measure brain activity, those were diagnostic tests based on biomarkers. We just don’t have them yet in psychiatry. The day we do have our first diagnostic tests, courtesy of a validated biomarker, will be a real milestone in the history of our profession.



Dr. Arbuckle: How far off might that be for psychiatry?

Dr. Lieberman: I’ve been in this profession for more than 30 years, and I’ve been saying for a while that it is coming soon. But we’re still waiting. Let me just add a cautionary note. Ever since psychiatry became scientifically minded and used scientific methodology and technology to understand the underpinnings of mental illness, there’s been an effort to identify biomarkers. It began in the 1960s with a series of false leads. There was something called the pink spot, as well as other metabolites, which were indicators on chromatographs linked to schizophrenia. This turned out to be wrong.

There was also the dexamethasone suppression test, to identify people who hypersecreted cortisol, which was believed to be diagnostic of depression. That turned out to be inadequate also.

There was the identification of genes beginning in the late 1980s. But the specific genes that indicated manic depressive illness and schizophrenia were not replicated. And now we know that the genetics of these disorders is polygenic and very complex.

So we cannot overpromise. I don’t want to say exactly when, but I will say that this is an area of intense research. There are a variety of different technologies that could yield this holy grail of diagnostic measures, including imaging measures such as MRI, PET, and nuclear medicine imaging, the use of genetics to create a polygenic risk score, and serologic analyses of blood to develop a panel of measures that may predict a specific condition or specific subtype of a condition.

It’s very likely, though, that we’ll not have a single pathognomonic test. I suspect that we’ll have several measures that, in combination, will be diagnostic or prognostic, in the same way that with cancer you have nomograms that give a prognosis. Or in the case of cardiovascular disease, where you have a lipid panel that takes into account a variety of lipid analytes to give you a risk score. I do believe that certainly within my professional lifetime, and hopefully sooner rather than later, we will see a diagnostic test.



Dr. Arbuckle: Given the different tests that did not pan out, what guidance can we offer clinicians as data come out and new potential biomarkers hit the media? How can we sift through what may or may not hold real promise?

Dr. Lieberman: I can tell practicing clinicians what not to do. Do not do what some of the charlatans in our field do. There are self-promoting psychiatrists out there who use SPECT scans to get a picture of the brain that is little more than pseudo color phrenology, and then they tell patients, “See this? This indicates that you have (this condition or that condition).” You can’t do that. Nothing we have now has that kind of validity or specificity.

However, even though a standard workup for an illness like schizophrenia does not require specific diagnostic tests, other than to rule out other conditions, imaging procedures can be useful additional information. For example, if you have an individual who presents with symptoms that meet criteria for schizophrenia and you obtain an MRI to rule out other possibilities, and the patient turns out to have dilated lateral ventricles or specific reductions in the size or distortions in the shape of certain temporal cortical structures, particularly in the hippocampus, that adds substance to your clinical diagnosis. So those kinds of things are useful. Similarly, with genetic testing, some institutions are now doing exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing that can provide a risk score. It adds something beyond a family history. These are not diagnostic, but they can add to your understanding.

Finally, with respect to schizophrenia and MRI in particular, if it does show structural abnormalities that are among the ones that have been reported for schizophrenia, this can be informative prognostically; such an individual may have a greater likelihood of having a chronic course with progression of the illness. And if that were my patient, I would be thinking that greater effort needs to be taken to ensure that the patient remains on treatment and does not suffer relapse.



Dr. Arbuckle: How do we prepare our trainees for a future of psychiatry with more biomarkers?

Dr. Lieberman: In medical school and postgraduate training, apart from understanding the method of diagnosis and the criteria for diagnoses, it’s important to understand the ancillary measures that are used in clinical medicine: blood testing, electrophysiologic measures, imaging procedures, neurocognitive testing, etc. This is a standard in terms of general medical training.

In terms of then applying it to mental illness and psychiatry, it’s a matter of knowing that these will be relevant at some point, staying apprised of the research literature that is generating data that pertain to the use of these measures for diagnostic, prognostic, or treatment-specific purposes, and then gauging how useful these will be. Right now, these measures are not required for diagnosis. They’re not validated sufficiently so that third-party payers will uniformly reimburse for them, but at some point they will be. Even before that time occurs, there are some measures that can be informative and enhance confidence in the diagnosis or add information about treatment response and outcome.



Dr. Arbuckle: We’re hearing about biotypes and how biotypes may not map to our current diagnostic systems. What are your thoughts about that?

Dr. Lieberman: You know, psychiatry has always been kind of the stepchild of medicine. And related to that, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the punching bag of the critics of psychiatry and the purported reason it hasn’t progressed faster. Sitting here at Columbia, the home of Robert Spitzer, who was the pioneer of the modern method of nosology that we still use in the DSM, it’s disappointing that we continue to lob tomatoes at this system, which is the best. It took psychiatry out of what was a dark age of clinical methodology and put it on solid scientific footing. That was in the late 1970s with [the development of] DSM-III.

And as much as we would like to have further progress, which would allow for not using a list of criteria in a menu-driven fashion to establish diagnoses, we’d like to have it be like a glucose tolerance test or an angiogram.

We’d like to do that, but we can’t yet. So there’s this aspirational desire to have something better, and this is permeating and motivating a lot of the research, which is good. But to claim that these don’t map to the current DSM and therefore invalidate the DSM-defined diagnoses is wrong and self-defeating. If the biotypes were validated, we would be using them. So if they don’t map to the current DSM diagnosis, is the diagnosis wrong or are the biotypes wrong? I believe it’s wishful thinking; individuals are trying to project their desires onto clinical practice, and it’s not desirable to do that. If there was anything that was an improvement on the DSM, it would have been incorporated into our practice.

The question about the limitations of DSM and the improved methods of neuroscientifically informed diagnostic systems was an issue that brought me into a confrontation with our former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 2013.

After 5 years of the DSM task force laboring to revise the fifth edition of the DSM, as it was about to be launched, our former director, Tom Insel, disavowed it and proposed as a preferable alternative the research domains criteria (RDoC) system that was in development at the NIMH, which I believe epitomized this kind of sour grapes at what psychiatry didn’t have – an aspiration to have a more neuroscientifically informed diagnostic system. And as soon as he made the statement publicly, he had to walk it back because the RDoC system or any other system was not ready for prime time. It would have been a catastrophe if it would have been the one that informed clinical psychiatry. There was nothing that was superior to the DSM to be used at the time. This shows how frustration sometimes impels people to make rash statements.

We’re on the right track. Our field is progressing enormously, and one has to remember that everything that’s relevant in terms of being scientifically based and validated through empirical research in clinical psychiatry and mental illness has happened since the last half of the 20th century.

It is a very short period of time. We’ve made tremendous progress, and we’re continuing to make progress toward the milestone we’re all hoping for, where we have diagnostic tests. But we shouldn’t shortchange ourselves or underestimate the progress we have made in the meantime.
 

Dr. Arbuckle: This has been a great conversation. Signing off for Medscape and Columbia Psychiatry. Thank you.

Dr. Lieberman is chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. He is a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Arbuckle is vice chair for education and director of resident education in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University. She is particularly interested in the role of medical education in translating research into the practice of psychiatry.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

A recently approved first-in-class antipsychotic appears to have fewer adverse cardiometabolic effects than standard care with risperidone, new research suggests.

In post hoc analyses of two short-term randomized controlled trials plus an open-label long-term study, patients with schizophrenia on lumateperone (Caplyta, Intra-Cellular Therapies) had reduced rates of metabolic syndrome, compared with their counterparts taking placebo or the antipsychotic risperidone.

In the short-term studies, rates of metabolic syndrome were similar between groups at baseline, but by the end of 4 and 6 weeks of treatment, 25% of patients taking lumateperone no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome. A similar finding occurred in 36% of patients in the 1-year open label study.

“One of the major advantages that we found during the drug’s development was that it has a very favorable profile with regard to changes in weight, and other [parameters] associated with cardiovascular disease risk, such as elevated glucose and lipids,” study investigator Andrew Satlin, MD, chief medical officer at Intra-Cellular Therapies, New York, told this news organization.

“So we went back to our data and looked to see whether the changes that we saw had an impact on either the development or the resolution of metabolic syndrome in the patients who came into our studies,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2020 Virtual Conference.
 

Reduced cholesterol

Lumateperone was approved in December by the Food and Drug Administration. The drug acts synergistically through the serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic systems.

The short-term studies included 511 patients randomly assigned to receive lumateperone 42 mg (n = 256 patients) or risperidone 4 mg (n = 255 patients).

At baseline, rates of metabolic syndrome were 16% in the lumateperone group and 19% in the risperidone group. At the end of treatment, metabolic syndrome was less common in the lumateperone group (13%) vs. those receiving risperidone (25%).

In addition, 46% of lumateperone patients with metabolic syndrome at baseline no longer had it at the end of the study period. This compared with 25% of patients on risperidone.

More patients taking risperidone than on lumateperone developed metabolic syndrome during treatment (13% vs. 5%).

The differences in metabolic syndrome conversion rates appeared to be driven by greater reductions in total cholesterol with lumateperone, compared with risperidone (­–2.8 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 4.8 mg/dL with risperidone) and triglycerides (–0.7 mg/dL with lumateperone vs. 20.4 mg/dL with risperidone).

Greater increases in blood glucose were also seen with risperidone (7.7 mg/dL) than with lumateperone (0.9 mg/dL).

The long-term study included 602 patients with stable schizophrenia. All received lumateperone 42 mg, and 197 patients (33%) had metabolic syndrome at baseline.

At the end of the 1-year study, 72 of these patients (36%) no longer met criteria for metabolic syndrome.
 

“Safest antipsychotic so far”

“Lumateperone seems to be the safest antipsychotic we have seen so far,” Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Charité Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, who was also involved in clinical trials of lumateperone, told this news organization.

“It seems to be very safe when it comes to cardiometabolic parameters, and it shows similar reduction in symptoms as risperidone. It is certainly an agent one should consider, particularly when a patient cannot tolerate other medications or may not be in full adherence,” said Dr. Correll, who has a joint appointment as professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

The drug’s safety and efficacy profile would make it a good candidate in patients initiating antipsychotic treatment, but reimbursement issues may be a barrier, at least for now, he added.

He said that the drug may prevent the onset of metabolic side effects and added that once payers are willing to reimburse the drug it should become the “first-line standard of care.”

It is well known that atypical antipsychotics are associated with adverse and rapid metabolic changes. Dr. Correll noted that particularly early-phase and first-episode patients can be “very sensitive” to the side effects of these drugs and often experience rapid weight gain and other adverse metabolic changes. Lumateperone, he added, may help avoid some of this cardiometabolic risk.
 

Time will tell

Jessica M. Gannon, MD, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh said in commenting on the findings that the drug’s favorable metabolic profile has previously been reported.

She also noted that there has been some interest in lumateperone because of possible “downstream effects on NMDA-type glutamate receptor activity, a larger binding ratio at dopamine-2:5HT1A receptors than other atypical antipsychotics, and presynaptic D2 partial agonism and a postsynaptic D2 antagonism.”

“This latter feature may explain the reported low extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the clinical trials,” she said .

“While I think future studies and clinical use can help determine how clinically efficacious this medication will be for our patients when compared to others on the market, its favorable metabolic and EPS profile do make it of interest,” added Gannon, who was not involved in researching the drug.

The study was funded by Intra-Cellular Therapies. Dr. Satlin is chief medical officer of Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to and has received honoraria from Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Axsome, Gedeon Richter, Gerson Lehrman Group, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, Medscape, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Recordati, Rovi, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Supernus, Takeda, and Teva.

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

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

The National Institute of Mental Health’s 2020 Strategic Plan outlines priorities in basic science research and clinical trials for psychiatry over the next 5 years, emphasizing where advances are needed in suicide prevention, digital health technology, early diagnosis in psychosis, and much more.

Experts’ reaction to the strategic plan is mixed. Some applaud the NIMH for addressing many essential research priorities and for returning a balance to the focus on basic/translational research and clinical advances. Others would have liked to see a different emphasis on some components of the plan.
 

Focusing on diversity

A greater weight on research in diverse populations and a renewed focus on studies across the lifespan – including developmental origins of psychiatric illness – are among the novel aspects of the plan.

“The enhanced attention to recruiting diverse subjects and focusing on diversity in our research is new and very welcome,” Jonathan E. Alpert, MD, PhD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Research, said in an interview.

Addressing the entire lifespan is likewise important, added Dr. Alpert, who holds the Dorothy and Marty Silverman Chair of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. “Many of the conditions we treat – whether they are mood disorders or even dementia– might have developmental origins that would be best studied early in life.”

Furthermore, the plan promotes more interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, there are new cross-cutting research themes, including prevention, environmental influences, global health, and more. These are areas where psychiatry needs strengthening, said Stevan M. Weine, MD, director of Global Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in an interview.

In the era of COVID-19, which will involve ongoing diseases and disasters such as those tied to climate changes and disparities, there will be a need to conduct research and train researchers who are more open to new research questions, said Dr. Weine, also director of the Center for Global Health and professor of psychiatry at the university. It also will be important to partner with researchers from multiple disciplines, he added.

The plan also recognizes novel applications of digital technology. In addition, the plan outlines the promise of “harnessing the power of data,” such as machine learning, to help identify suicide risk factors based on large data, for example. However, Igor Galynker, MD, PhD, predicted that this technology will likely identify factors that “we see again and again,” such as depression, other forms of mental illness, and previous attempt history.

“Machine learning is useful but should not be emphasized” even if it is “technologically sexy and almost seductive,” Dr. Galynker, director of the Suicide Research & Prevention Laboratory at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.
 

Addressing suicide

The strategic plan places a renewed emphasis on suicide prevention. The report cites a “troubling rise in the national suicide rate.” The authors suggested expanding initial success with brief screening tools in emergency departments to other clinical settings. Furthermore, the report highlights evidence that pairing such screening with low-cost follow-up interventions, such as telephone calls, can reduce the number of suicide attempts the following year.

Widespread screening could help identify people at risk, but it relies on the honesty of self-reporting, Dr. Galynker said, adding that about 75% of people who end their own lives never disclose their plan to anyone. Furthermore, suicide intent can be very short-lived – a crisis lasting as little as 15 minutes for some – reducing the likelihood that routine screening will flag a person in crisis.

“What is missing is an individual approach,” Dr. Galynker said while also endorsing the systemic approach to suicide prevention in the plan. “One thing in the strategic plan I may not agree with is the emphasis on administrative prediction measures ... based on drop-down menus and risk factors, and not on patient stories.” Risk factors are useful for long-term or lifetime risk, but they are not going to predict who will switch to acute suicidal state in the next several days or hours.”

Instead, Dr. Galynker suggested screening people for suicide crisis syndrome, which is “a very defined, characteristic, reproducible, and importantly, treatable,” state.

Covering basic neuroscience

Suicide prevention is just one of seven challenges and opportunities highlighted in the strategic plan. The authors also address research priorities for early treatment of psychosis and for research into mental health equity, HIV/AIDS research, genetics, and neural circuits.

“My overall impression is it’s very positive,” said Dr. Alpert, who is also professor and chair of the psychiatry and behavioral sciences department at Albert Einstein. “It really spans basic and translational neuroscience all the way to health services research and health disparities research. And I think, for many of us, we welcome that. It feels very relevant to the broad span of meaningful psychiatric research.”

Dr. Weine agreed. The strategic plan is “very helpful,” he said. “It is comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary.”
 

Promoting four overall goals

The plan seeks to promote the four following goals:

• Define the brain mechanisms underlying complex behaviors.
• Examine mental illness trajectories across the lifespan.
• Strive for prevention and cures.
• Strengthen the public health effects of National Institutes of Health–supported research.

The first goal is “an effort to try to make sense of the underlying biology, and that has to be your foundation point,” Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Arlington, Va., said in an interview. “The reason we don’t have a lot of new drug discovery is because the fundamentals of biology still need understanding. It’s a long-term goal, so it’s hard,” he added. “Everyone living with someone in their life with an illness wants better ideas now.”

The third goal is likewise challenging, Dr. Duckworth said. “That is optimistic and ... aspirational, but very important and valuable.”

Developing innovative models

Regarding the public health goal, Dr. Duckworth cited one of the objectives, to “Develop innovative service delivery models to dramatically improve the outcomes of mental health services received in diverse communities and populations.” Dr. Duckworth explained, “Trying to solve for the problem in the context of an inadequate workforce that is insufficiently diverse – it just gets to something that I’m not sure would have been a priority in the past.

“That speaks to the awakening we’re having as a society. To address some of these historic and systemic injustices and how research can play into that is really important,” Dr. Duckworth added.

Overall, he saluted the plan and its goals. Dr. Duckworth added, “We gave some feedback that we wanted more emphasis on co-occurring disorders, such as research into people with mental health and addiction [issues] and on premature mortality. I think they took some of that feedback.”
 

Facing ‘significant challenges’

The plan “faces key challenges, such as rising suicide rates, high stigma, and social drivers of mental illnesses,” Dr. Weine added. “It sets a path for scientific advances that are responsive to these problems.” 

“The future is bright. Looking forward to the next 5 years and beyond, the new NIMH Strategic Plan for Research aims to build on these advances,” Joshua A. Gordon, MD, PhD, NIMH director, noted in his Director’s Messages blog.

“Nonetheless, we face significant challenges,” he adds. “Studies of the origins of mental illnesses suggest that a combination of causes – genetic, environmental, social, and psychological – act on the brain through a complex web of interactions, resulting in a set of heterogeneous and overlapping illnesses.”

“My hope is that the actual funding of research over the coming years reflects the comprehensive, broad, and multidisciplinary characteristics of this strategic plan,” Dr. Weine said.

The NIMH plans to its post progress for each goal on an ongoing basis on the Strategic Plan website.

Dr. Alpert, Dr. Galynker, Dr. Weine, and Dr. Duckworth had no relevant disclosures.

A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.

The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.

“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.

The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Problem-solving tool

“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.

TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.

“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.

The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:

Strongly recommended (Level 1)

• Clozapine
• Fluphenazine
• Haloperidol
• Olanzapine
• Perazine
• Perphenazine

Recommended (Level 2)

• Aripiprazole
• Chlorpromazine
• Flupentixol
• Paliperidone
• Quetiapine
• Risperidone
• Sertindole
• Ziprasidone

Useful (Level 3)

• Brexpiprazole
• Cariprazine
• Chlorprothixene
• Iloperidone
• Loxapine
• Lurasidone
• Melperone
• Pimozide

Potentially useful (Level 4)

• Asenapine

 

 

Proven benefits

“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.

Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.

Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.

Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.

Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.

“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
 

Long overdue

Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.

“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.

This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.

“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.

“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.

“This statement is long overdue because TDM is probably the most underutilized tool in psychiatry for individualizing pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Preskorn.

Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.

Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.

In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.

No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
 

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

A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.

The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.

“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.

The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Problem-solving tool

“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.

TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.

“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.

The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:

Strongly recommended (Level 1)

• Clozapine
• Fluphenazine
• Haloperidol
• Olanzapine
• Perazine
• Perphenazine

Recommended (Level 2)

• Aripiprazole
• Chlorpromazine
• Flupentixol
• Paliperidone
• Quetiapine
• Risperidone
• Sertindole
• Ziprasidone

Useful (Level 3)

• Brexpiprazole
• Cariprazine
• Chlorprothixene
• Iloperidone
• Loxapine
• Lurasidone
• Melperone
• Pimozide

Potentially useful (Level 4)

• Asenapine

 

 

Proven benefits

“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.

Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.

Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.

Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.

Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.

“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
 

Long overdue

Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.

“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.

This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.

“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.

“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.

“This statement is long overdue because TDM is probably the most underutilized tool in psychiatry for individualizing pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Preskorn.

Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.

Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.

In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.

No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
 

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

A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.

The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.

“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.

The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Problem-solving tool

“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.

TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.

“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.

The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:

Strongly recommended (Level 1)

• Clozapine
• Fluphenazine
• Haloperidol
• Olanzapine
• Perazine
• Perphenazine

Recommended (Level 2)

• Aripiprazole
• Chlorpromazine
• Flupentixol
• Paliperidone
• Quetiapine
• Risperidone
• Sertindole
• Ziprasidone

Useful (Level 3)

• Brexpiprazole
• Cariprazine
• Chlorprothixene
• Iloperidone
• Loxapine
• Lurasidone
• Melperone
• Pimozide

Potentially useful (Level 4)

• Asenapine

 

 

Proven benefits

“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.

Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.

Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.

Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.

Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.

“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
 

Long overdue

Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.

“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.

This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.

“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.

“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.

“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.

“This statement is long overdue because TDM is probably the most underutilized tool in psychiatry for individualizing pharmacotherapy,” said Dr. Preskorn.

Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.

Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.

In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.

No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
 

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

Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) and paliperidone palmitate (PP) are effective and well tolerated for initiating treatment of schizophrenia in the hospital and for continuing outpatient treatment, results of a phase 3, double-blind trial show.

A total of 200 patients completed the study, 99 of whom received aripiprazole lauroxil (Aristada Initio) and 101 of whom received paliperidone palmitate (Invega Sustenna). The baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome scale (PANSS) total score for those who received aripiprazole lauroxil was 94.1 and 94.6 for those who received paliperidone palmitate, Peter J. Weiden, MD, of Alkermes, and his associates reported in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received aripiprazole lauroxil saw a mean PANSS score reduction of 17.4 points; after 9 weeks the reduction was 19.8 points and was 23.3 points after 25 weeks. For patients who received paliperidone palmitate the reduction in PANSS score was 20.1 points at week 4, 22.5 points at week 9, and 21.7 points at week 25. The most common adverse events in both groups were injection-site pain (17.2% and 24.8%, respectively), increased weight (9.1% and 16.8%, respectively), and akathisia (9.1% and 10.9%, respectively).

“Acutely symptomatic patients with schizophrenia on a 2-month dose regimen of AL with the 1-day initiation regimen demonstrated safety and efficacy consistent with that seen in prior AL studies. ... The inclusion of PP provided an active control with known safety and efficacy that can also be rapidly initiated. Both regimens can be effectively used in patients with schizophrenia through the often challenging transition from acute hospitalization to outpatient continuation treatment, the investigators concluded.

The study was sponsored by Alkermes, manufacturer of Aristada Initio. Invega Sustenna is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The investigators reported being employed by, owning stock/options in, or receiving research support from Alkermes; two investigators reported receiving research support from numerous other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weiden PJ et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m13207.

Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) and paliperidone palmitate (PP) are effective and well tolerated for initiating treatment of schizophrenia in the hospital and for continuing outpatient treatment, results of a phase 3, double-blind trial show.

A total of 200 patients completed the study, 99 of whom received aripiprazole lauroxil (Aristada Initio) and 101 of whom received paliperidone palmitate (Invega Sustenna). The baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome scale (PANSS) total score for those who received aripiprazole lauroxil was 94.1 and 94.6 for those who received paliperidone palmitate, Peter J. Weiden, MD, of Alkermes, and his associates reported in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received aripiprazole lauroxil saw a mean PANSS score reduction of 17.4 points; after 9 weeks the reduction was 19.8 points and was 23.3 points after 25 weeks. For patients who received paliperidone palmitate the reduction in PANSS score was 20.1 points at week 4, 22.5 points at week 9, and 21.7 points at week 25. The most common adverse events in both groups were injection-site pain (17.2% and 24.8%, respectively), increased weight (9.1% and 16.8%, respectively), and akathisia (9.1% and 10.9%, respectively).

“Acutely symptomatic patients with schizophrenia on a 2-month dose regimen of AL with the 1-day initiation regimen demonstrated safety and efficacy consistent with that seen in prior AL studies. ... The inclusion of PP provided an active control with known safety and efficacy that can also be rapidly initiated. Both regimens can be effectively used in patients with schizophrenia through the often challenging transition from acute hospitalization to outpatient continuation treatment, the investigators concluded.

The study was sponsored by Alkermes, manufacturer of Aristada Initio. Invega Sustenna is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The investigators reported being employed by, owning stock/options in, or receiving research support from Alkermes; two investigators reported receiving research support from numerous other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weiden PJ et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m13207.

Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) and paliperidone palmitate (PP) are effective and well tolerated for initiating treatment of schizophrenia in the hospital and for continuing outpatient treatment, results of a phase 3, double-blind trial show.

A total of 200 patients completed the study, 99 of whom received aripiprazole lauroxil (Aristada Initio) and 101 of whom received paliperidone palmitate (Invega Sustenna). The baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome scale (PANSS) total score for those who received aripiprazole lauroxil was 94.1 and 94.6 for those who received paliperidone palmitate, Peter J. Weiden, MD, of Alkermes, and his associates reported in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

After 4 weeks of treatment, patients who received aripiprazole lauroxil saw a mean PANSS score reduction of 17.4 points; after 9 weeks the reduction was 19.8 points and was 23.3 points after 25 weeks. For patients who received paliperidone palmitate the reduction in PANSS score was 20.1 points at week 4, 22.5 points at week 9, and 21.7 points at week 25. The most common adverse events in both groups were injection-site pain (17.2% and 24.8%, respectively), increased weight (9.1% and 16.8%, respectively), and akathisia (9.1% and 10.9%, respectively).

“Acutely symptomatic patients with schizophrenia on a 2-month dose regimen of AL with the 1-day initiation regimen demonstrated safety and efficacy consistent with that seen in prior AL studies. ... The inclusion of PP provided an active control with known safety and efficacy that can also be rapidly initiated. Both regimens can be effectively used in patients with schizophrenia through the often challenging transition from acute hospitalization to outpatient continuation treatment, the investigators concluded.

The study was sponsored by Alkermes, manufacturer of Aristada Initio. Invega Sustenna is produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. The investigators reported being employed by, owning stock/options in, or receiving research support from Alkermes; two investigators reported receiving research support from numerous other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Weiden PJ et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.4088/JCP.19m13207.

Movement-based yoga appears to ease depressive symptoms in a wide range of mental health disorders, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

Results of the research, which included 19 studies and more than 1,000 patients with a variety of mental health diagnoses, showed that those who practiced yoga experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms versus those undergoing no treatment, usual treatment, or attention-control exercises. In addition, there was a dose-dependent effect such that more weekly yoga sessions were associated with the greatest reduction in depressive symptoms.

“Once we reviewed all the existing science about the mental health benefits of movement-based yoga, we found that movement-based yoga – which is the same thing as postural yoga or asana – helped reduce symptoms of depression,” study investigator Jacinta Brinsley, BClinExPhys, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“We also found those who practiced more frequently had bigger reductions. However, it didn’t matter how long the individual sessions were; what mattered was how many times per week people practiced,” she added.

The researchers noted that the study is the first to focus specifically on movement-based yoga.

“We excluded meditative forms of yoga, which have often been included in previous reviews, yielding mixed findings. The other thing we’ve done a bit differently is pool all the different diagnoses together and then look at depressive symptoms across them,” said Ms. Brinsley.

The study was published online May 18 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Getting clarity

Depressive disorders are currently the world’s leading cause of disability, affecting more than 340 million people.

Most individuals who suffer from depressive disorders also experience a host of physical comorbidities including obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease.

Perhaps not surprisingly, physical inactivity is also associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, which may be the reason some international organizations now recommend that physical activity be included as part of routine psychiatric care.

One potential form of exercise is yoga, which has become popular in Western culture, including among psychiatric patients. Although previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of various yoga interventions on mental health, none has investigated the benefits of yoga across a range of psychiatric diagnoses.

What’s more, the authors of these reviews all urge caution when interpreting their results because of potential heterogeneity of the various yoga interventions, as well as poor methodological reporting.

“As an exercise physiologist, I prescribe evidence-based treatment,” said Ms. Brinsley. “I was interested in seeing if there’s evidence to support movement-based yoga in people who were struggling with mental health or who had a diagnosed mental illness.

“The [previous] findings are quite contradictory and there’s not a clear outcome in terms of intervention results, so we pooled the data and ran the meta-analysis, thinking it would be a great way to add some important evidence to the science,” she added.

To allow for a more comprehensive assessment of yoga’s potential mental health benefits, the investigators included a range of mental health diagnoses.

Dose-dependent effect

Studies were only included in the analysis if they were randomized, controlled trials with a yoga intervention that had a minimum of 50% physical activity during each session in adults with a recognized diagnosed mental disorder. Control conditions were defined as treatment as usual, wait list, or attention controls.

Two investigators independently scanned article titles and abstracts, and a final list of articles for the study was decided by consensus. Study quality was reported using the PEDro checklist; a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

A total of 3,880 records were identified and screened. The investigators assessed full-text versions of 80 articles, 19 of which (1,080 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the review.

Of these, nine studies included patients with a depressive disorder; five trials were in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, three studies included patients with a diagnosis of PTSD, one study included patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence, and one study included patients with a range of psychiatric disorders.

Of the 1,080 patients included in the review, 578 were assigned to yoga and 502 to control conditions. Yoga practice involved a mixture of movement, breathing exercises, and/or mindfulness, but the movement component took up more than half of each session.

The yoga interventions lasted an average of 2.4 months (range, 1.5-2.5 months), with an average of 1.6 sessions per week (range, 1-3 sessions) that lasted an average of 60 minutes (range, 20-90 minutes).

Of the 19 studies (632 patients), 13 reported changes in depressive symptoms and were therefore included in the meta-analysis. The six studies excluded from the quantitative analysis did not report depression symptom scores.

With respect to primary outcomes, individuals who performed yoga showed a greater reduction in depressive symptoms, compared with the three control groups (standardized mean difference, –0.41; 95% CI, –0.65 to –0.17; P < .001).

Specific subgroup analyses showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms, compared with wait-list controls (SMD, –0.58; P < .05), treatment as usual (SMD, –0.39; P = .31), and attention controls (SMD, –0.21; P = .22).

Subgroup analyses were also performed with respect to diagnostic category. These data showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms in depressive disorders (SMD, –0.40; P < .01), no effect in PTSD (SMD, –0.01; P = .95), a nominal effect in alcohol use disorders (SMD, –0.24; P = .69), and a marked effect in schizophrenia (SMD, –0.90; P < .01).

Movement may be key

Researchers also performed a series of meta-regression analyses, which showed that the number of yoga sessions performed each week had a significant effect on depressive symptoms. Indeed, individuals with higher session frequencies demonstrated a greater improvement in symptoms (beta, –0.44; P < .001).

These findings, said Ms. Brinsley, suggest yoga may be a viable intervention for managing depressive symptoms in patients with a variety of mental disorders.

Based on these findings, Ms. Brinsley said she would encourage mental health practitioners to consider yoga as an evidence-based exercise modality for their patients, along with other conventional forms of exercise.

Equally important was the finding that the number of weekly yoga sessions moderated the effect of depressive symptoms, as it may inform the future design of yoga interventions in patients with mental disorders.

With this in mind, the researchers recommended that such interventions should aim to increase the frequency or weekly sessions rather than the duration of each individual session or the overall duration of the intervention.

However, said Ms. Brinsley, these findings suggest it is the physical aspect of the yoga practice that may be key.

“Yoga comprises several different components, including the movement postures, the breathing component, and the mindfulness or meditative component, but in this meta-analysis we looked specifically at yoga that was at least 50% movement based. So it might have also included mindfulness and breathing, but it had to have the movement,” she said.

Don’t discount meditation

Commenting on the findings, Holger Cramer, MSc, PhD, DSc, who was not involved in the study, noted that the systematic review and meta-analysis builds on a number of previous reviews regarding the benefits of yoga for mental disorders.

“Surprisingly, the largest effect in this analysis was found in schizophrenia, even higher than in patients with depressive disorders,” said Dr. Cramer of the University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). “This is in strong contradiction to what would otherwise be expected. As the authors point out, only about a quarter of all schizophrenia patients suffer from depression, so there should not be so much room for improvement.”

Dr. Cramer also advised against reducing yoga to simply a physical undertaking. “We have shown in our meta-analysis that those interventions focusing on meditation and/or breathing techniques are the most effective ones,” he added.

As such, he urged that breathing techniques be a part of yoga for treating depression in psychiatric disorders, though care should be taken in patients with PTSD, “since breath control might be perceived as unpleasant.”

For Ms. Brinsley, the findings help solidify yoga’s potential as a genuine treatment option for a variety of mental health patients suffering depressive symptoms.

“It’s about acknowledging that yoga can be a helpful part of treatment and can have a significant effect on mental health,” she noted.

At the same time, practitioners also need to acknowledge that patients suffering from mental health disorders may struggle with motivation when it comes to activities such as yoga.

“Engaging in a new activity can be particularly challenging if you’re struggling with mental health. Nevertheless, it’s important for people to have a choice and do something they enjoy. And yoga can be another tool in their toolbox for managing their mental health,” she said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Health Education England. Ms. Brinsley and Dr. Cramer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Movement-based yoga appears to ease depressive symptoms in a wide range of mental health disorders, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

Results of the research, which included 19 studies and more than 1,000 patients with a variety of mental health diagnoses, showed that those who practiced yoga experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms versus those undergoing no treatment, usual treatment, or attention-control exercises. In addition, there was a dose-dependent effect such that more weekly yoga sessions were associated with the greatest reduction in depressive symptoms.

“Once we reviewed all the existing science about the mental health benefits of movement-based yoga, we found that movement-based yoga – which is the same thing as postural yoga or asana – helped reduce symptoms of depression,” study investigator Jacinta Brinsley, BClinExPhys, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“We also found those who practiced more frequently had bigger reductions. However, it didn’t matter how long the individual sessions were; what mattered was how many times per week people practiced,” she added.

The researchers noted that the study is the first to focus specifically on movement-based yoga.

“We excluded meditative forms of yoga, which have often been included in previous reviews, yielding mixed findings. The other thing we’ve done a bit differently is pool all the different diagnoses together and then look at depressive symptoms across them,” said Ms. Brinsley.

The study was published online May 18 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Getting clarity

Depressive disorders are currently the world’s leading cause of disability, affecting more than 340 million people.

Most individuals who suffer from depressive disorders also experience a host of physical comorbidities including obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease.

Perhaps not surprisingly, physical inactivity is also associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, which may be the reason some international organizations now recommend that physical activity be included as part of routine psychiatric care.

One potential form of exercise is yoga, which has become popular in Western culture, including among psychiatric patients. Although previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of various yoga interventions on mental health, none has investigated the benefits of yoga across a range of psychiatric diagnoses.

What’s more, the authors of these reviews all urge caution when interpreting their results because of potential heterogeneity of the various yoga interventions, as well as poor methodological reporting.

“As an exercise physiologist, I prescribe evidence-based treatment,” said Ms. Brinsley. “I was interested in seeing if there’s evidence to support movement-based yoga in people who were struggling with mental health or who had a diagnosed mental illness.

“The [previous] findings are quite contradictory and there’s not a clear outcome in terms of intervention results, so we pooled the data and ran the meta-analysis, thinking it would be a great way to add some important evidence to the science,” she added.

To allow for a more comprehensive assessment of yoga’s potential mental health benefits, the investigators included a range of mental health diagnoses.

Dose-dependent effect

Studies were only included in the analysis if they were randomized, controlled trials with a yoga intervention that had a minimum of 50% physical activity during each session in adults with a recognized diagnosed mental disorder. Control conditions were defined as treatment as usual, wait list, or attention controls.

Two investigators independently scanned article titles and abstracts, and a final list of articles for the study was decided by consensus. Study quality was reported using the PEDro checklist; a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

A total of 3,880 records were identified and screened. The investigators assessed full-text versions of 80 articles, 19 of which (1,080 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the review.

Of these, nine studies included patients with a depressive disorder; five trials were in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, three studies included patients with a diagnosis of PTSD, one study included patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence, and one study included patients with a range of psychiatric disorders.

Of the 1,080 patients included in the review, 578 were assigned to yoga and 502 to control conditions. Yoga practice involved a mixture of movement, breathing exercises, and/or mindfulness, but the movement component took up more than half of each session.

The yoga interventions lasted an average of 2.4 months (range, 1.5-2.5 months), with an average of 1.6 sessions per week (range, 1-3 sessions) that lasted an average of 60 minutes (range, 20-90 minutes).

Of the 19 studies (632 patients), 13 reported changes in depressive symptoms and were therefore included in the meta-analysis. The six studies excluded from the quantitative analysis did not report depression symptom scores.

With respect to primary outcomes, individuals who performed yoga showed a greater reduction in depressive symptoms, compared with the three control groups (standardized mean difference, –0.41; 95% CI, –0.65 to –0.17; P < .001).

Specific subgroup analyses showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms, compared with wait-list controls (SMD, –0.58; P < .05), treatment as usual (SMD, –0.39; P = .31), and attention controls (SMD, –0.21; P = .22).

Subgroup analyses were also performed with respect to diagnostic category. These data showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms in depressive disorders (SMD, –0.40; P < .01), no effect in PTSD (SMD, –0.01; P = .95), a nominal effect in alcohol use disorders (SMD, –0.24; P = .69), and a marked effect in schizophrenia (SMD, –0.90; P < .01).

Movement may be key

Researchers also performed a series of meta-regression analyses, which showed that the number of yoga sessions performed each week had a significant effect on depressive symptoms. Indeed, individuals with higher session frequencies demonstrated a greater improvement in symptoms (beta, –0.44; P < .001).

These findings, said Ms. Brinsley, suggest yoga may be a viable intervention for managing depressive symptoms in patients with a variety of mental disorders.

Based on these findings, Ms. Brinsley said she would encourage mental health practitioners to consider yoga as an evidence-based exercise modality for their patients, along with other conventional forms of exercise.

Equally important was the finding that the number of weekly yoga sessions moderated the effect of depressive symptoms, as it may inform the future design of yoga interventions in patients with mental disorders.

With this in mind, the researchers recommended that such interventions should aim to increase the frequency or weekly sessions rather than the duration of each individual session or the overall duration of the intervention.

However, said Ms. Brinsley, these findings suggest it is the physical aspect of the yoga practice that may be key.

“Yoga comprises several different components, including the movement postures, the breathing component, and the mindfulness or meditative component, but in this meta-analysis we looked specifically at yoga that was at least 50% movement based. So it might have also included mindfulness and breathing, but it had to have the movement,” she said.

Don’t discount meditation

Commenting on the findings, Holger Cramer, MSc, PhD, DSc, who was not involved in the study, noted that the systematic review and meta-analysis builds on a number of previous reviews regarding the benefits of yoga for mental disorders.

“Surprisingly, the largest effect in this analysis was found in schizophrenia, even higher than in patients with depressive disorders,” said Dr. Cramer of the University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). “This is in strong contradiction to what would otherwise be expected. As the authors point out, only about a quarter of all schizophrenia patients suffer from depression, so there should not be so much room for improvement.”

Dr. Cramer also advised against reducing yoga to simply a physical undertaking. “We have shown in our meta-analysis that those interventions focusing on meditation and/or breathing techniques are the most effective ones,” he added.

As such, he urged that breathing techniques be a part of yoga for treating depression in psychiatric disorders, though care should be taken in patients with PTSD, “since breath control might be perceived as unpleasant.”

For Ms. Brinsley, the findings help solidify yoga’s potential as a genuine treatment option for a variety of mental health patients suffering depressive symptoms.

“It’s about acknowledging that yoga can be a helpful part of treatment and can have a significant effect on mental health,” she noted.

At the same time, practitioners also need to acknowledge that patients suffering from mental health disorders may struggle with motivation when it comes to activities such as yoga.

“Engaging in a new activity can be particularly challenging if you’re struggling with mental health. Nevertheless, it’s important for people to have a choice and do something they enjoy. And yoga can be another tool in their toolbox for managing their mental health,” she said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Health Education England. Ms. Brinsley and Dr. Cramer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Movement-based yoga appears to ease depressive symptoms in a wide range of mental health disorders, a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggest.

Results of the research, which included 19 studies and more than 1,000 patients with a variety of mental health diagnoses, showed that those who practiced yoga experienced greater reductions in depressive symptoms versus those undergoing no treatment, usual treatment, or attention-control exercises. In addition, there was a dose-dependent effect such that more weekly yoga sessions were associated with the greatest reduction in depressive symptoms.

“Once we reviewed all the existing science about the mental health benefits of movement-based yoga, we found that movement-based yoga – which is the same thing as postural yoga or asana – helped reduce symptoms of depression,” study investigator Jacinta Brinsley, BClinExPhys, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, said in an interview.

“We also found those who practiced more frequently had bigger reductions. However, it didn’t matter how long the individual sessions were; what mattered was how many times per week people practiced,” she added.

The researchers noted that the study is the first to focus specifically on movement-based yoga.

“We excluded meditative forms of yoga, which have often been included in previous reviews, yielding mixed findings. The other thing we’ve done a bit differently is pool all the different diagnoses together and then look at depressive symptoms across them,” said Ms. Brinsley.

The study was published online May 18 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Getting clarity

Depressive disorders are currently the world’s leading cause of disability, affecting more than 340 million people.

Most individuals who suffer from depressive disorders also experience a host of physical comorbidities including obesity, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease.

Perhaps not surprisingly, physical inactivity is also associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, which may be the reason some international organizations now recommend that physical activity be included as part of routine psychiatric care.

One potential form of exercise is yoga, which has become popular in Western culture, including among psychiatric patients. Although previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have examined the effects of various yoga interventions on mental health, none has investigated the benefits of yoga across a range of psychiatric diagnoses.

What’s more, the authors of these reviews all urge caution when interpreting their results because of potential heterogeneity of the various yoga interventions, as well as poor methodological reporting.

“As an exercise physiologist, I prescribe evidence-based treatment,” said Ms. Brinsley. “I was interested in seeing if there’s evidence to support movement-based yoga in people who were struggling with mental health or who had a diagnosed mental illness.

“The [previous] findings are quite contradictory and there’s not a clear outcome in terms of intervention results, so we pooled the data and ran the meta-analysis, thinking it would be a great way to add some important evidence to the science,” she added.

To allow for a more comprehensive assessment of yoga’s potential mental health benefits, the investigators included a range of mental health diagnoses.

Dose-dependent effect

Studies were only included in the analysis if they were randomized, controlled trials with a yoga intervention that had a minimum of 50% physical activity during each session in adults with a recognized diagnosed mental disorder. Control conditions were defined as treatment as usual, wait list, or attention controls.

Two investigators independently scanned article titles and abstracts, and a final list of articles for the study was decided by consensus. Study quality was reported using the PEDro checklist; a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

A total of 3,880 records were identified and screened. The investigators assessed full-text versions of 80 articles, 19 of which (1,080 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the review.

Of these, nine studies included patients with a depressive disorder; five trials were in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, three studies included patients with a diagnosis of PTSD, one study included patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence, and one study included patients with a range of psychiatric disorders.

Of the 1,080 patients included in the review, 578 were assigned to yoga and 502 to control conditions. Yoga practice involved a mixture of movement, breathing exercises, and/or mindfulness, but the movement component took up more than half of each session.

The yoga interventions lasted an average of 2.4 months (range, 1.5-2.5 months), with an average of 1.6 sessions per week (range, 1-3 sessions) that lasted an average of 60 minutes (range, 20-90 minutes).

Of the 19 studies (632 patients), 13 reported changes in depressive symptoms and were therefore included in the meta-analysis. The six studies excluded from the quantitative analysis did not report depression symptom scores.

With respect to primary outcomes, individuals who performed yoga showed a greater reduction in depressive symptoms, compared with the three control groups (standardized mean difference, –0.41; 95% CI, –0.65 to –0.17; P < .001).

Specific subgroup analyses showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms, compared with wait-list controls (SMD, –0.58; P < .05), treatment as usual (SMD, –0.39; P = .31), and attention controls (SMD, –0.21; P = .22).

Subgroup analyses were also performed with respect to diagnostic category. These data showed a moderate effect of yoga on depressive symptoms in depressive disorders (SMD, –0.40; P < .01), no effect in PTSD (SMD, –0.01; P = .95), a nominal effect in alcohol use disorders (SMD, –0.24; P = .69), and a marked effect in schizophrenia (SMD, –0.90; P < .01).

Movement may be key

Researchers also performed a series of meta-regression analyses, which showed that the number of yoga sessions performed each week had a significant effect on depressive symptoms. Indeed, individuals with higher session frequencies demonstrated a greater improvement in symptoms (beta, –0.44; P < .001).

These findings, said Ms. Brinsley, suggest yoga may be a viable intervention for managing depressive symptoms in patients with a variety of mental disorders.

Based on these findings, Ms. Brinsley said she would encourage mental health practitioners to consider yoga as an evidence-based exercise modality for their patients, along with other conventional forms of exercise.

Equally important was the finding that the number of weekly yoga sessions moderated the effect of depressive symptoms, as it may inform the future design of yoga interventions in patients with mental disorders.

With this in mind, the researchers recommended that such interventions should aim to increase the frequency or weekly sessions rather than the duration of each individual session or the overall duration of the intervention.

However, said Ms. Brinsley, these findings suggest it is the physical aspect of the yoga practice that may be key.

“Yoga comprises several different components, including the movement postures, the breathing component, and the mindfulness or meditative component, but in this meta-analysis we looked specifically at yoga that was at least 50% movement based. So it might have also included mindfulness and breathing, but it had to have the movement,” she said.

Don’t discount meditation

Commenting on the findings, Holger Cramer, MSc, PhD, DSc, who was not involved in the study, noted that the systematic review and meta-analysis builds on a number of previous reviews regarding the benefits of yoga for mental disorders.

“Surprisingly, the largest effect in this analysis was found in schizophrenia, even higher than in patients with depressive disorders,” said Dr. Cramer of the University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). “This is in strong contradiction to what would otherwise be expected. As the authors point out, only about a quarter of all schizophrenia patients suffer from depression, so there should not be so much room for improvement.”

Dr. Cramer also advised against reducing yoga to simply a physical undertaking. “We have shown in our meta-analysis that those interventions focusing on meditation and/or breathing techniques are the most effective ones,” he added.

As such, he urged that breathing techniques be a part of yoga for treating depression in psychiatric disorders, though care should be taken in patients with PTSD, “since breath control might be perceived as unpleasant.”

For Ms. Brinsley, the findings help solidify yoga’s potential as a genuine treatment option for a variety of mental health patients suffering depressive symptoms.

“It’s about acknowledging that yoga can be a helpful part of treatment and can have a significant effect on mental health,” she noted.

At the same time, practitioners also need to acknowledge that patients suffering from mental health disorders may struggle with motivation when it comes to activities such as yoga.

“Engaging in a new activity can be particularly challenging if you’re struggling with mental health. Nevertheless, it’s important for people to have a choice and do something they enjoy. And yoga can be another tool in their toolbox for managing their mental health,” she said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and Health Education England. Ms. Brinsley and Dr. Cramer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been increasing interest in the medicinal use of cannabidiol (CBD) for a wide variety of health conditions. CBD is one of more than 80 chemicals identified in the Cannabis sativa plant, otherwise known as marijuana or hemp. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana that produces a “high.” CBD, which is one of the most abundant cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa, does not produce any psychotomimetic effects.

The strongest scientific evidence supporting CBD for medicinal purposes is for its effectiveness in treating certain childhood epilepsy syndromes that typically do not respond to antiseizure medications. Currently, the only FDA-approved CBD product is a prescription oil cannabidiol (brand name: Epidiolex) for treating 2 types of epilepsy. Aside from Epidiolex, state laws governing the use of CBD vary. CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of psychiatric conditions, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dystonia, insomnia, and anxiety. Research supporting CBD’s benefits is limited, and the US National Library of Medicine’s MedlinePlus indicates there is “insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness” for these indications.¹

Despite having been legalized for medicinal use in many states, CBD is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance by the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Because of this classification, little has been done to regulate and oversee the sale of products containing CBD. In a 2017 study of 84 CBD products sold by 31 companies online, Bonn-Miller et al² found that nearly 70% percent of products were inaccurately labeled. In this study, blind testing found that only approximately 31% of products contained within 10% of the amount of CBD that was listed on the label. These researchers also found that some products contained components not listed on the label, including THC.²

The relationship between cannabis and psychosis or psychotic symptoms has been investigated for decades. Some recent studies that examined the effects of CBD on psychosis found that individuals who use CBD may experience fewer positive psychotic symptoms compared with placebo. This raises the question of whether CBD may have a role in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. One of the first studies on this issue was conducted by Leweke et al,³ who compared oral CBD, up to 800 mg/d, with the antipsychotic amisulpride, up to 800 mg/d, in 39 patients with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms. Amisulpride is used outside the United States to treat psychosis, but is FDA-approved only as an antiemetic. Patients were treated for 4 weeks. By Day 28, there was a significant reduction in positive symptoms as measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), with no significant difference in efficacy between the treatments. Similar findings emerged for negative, total, and general symptoms, with significant reductions by Day 28 in both treatment arms, and no significant between-treatment differences.

These findings were the first robust indication that CBD may have antipsychotic efficacy. However, of greater interest may be CBD’s markedly superior adverse effect profile. Predictably, amisulpride significantly increased extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), weight gain, and prolactin levels from baseline to Day 28. However, no significant change was found in any of these adverse effects in the CBD group, and the between-treatment difference was significant (all P < .01).

Here we review 4 recent studies that evaluated CBD as a treatment for schizophrenia. These studies are summarized in the Table.^4-7

Continue to: McGuire P, et al...

 

 

1. McGuire P, Robson P, Cubala WJ, et al. Cannabidiol (CBD) as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(3):225-231.

Antipsychotic medications act through blockade of central dopamine D2 receptors. For most patients, antipsychotics effectively treat positive psychotic symptoms, which are driven by elevated dopamine function. However, these medications have minimal effects on negative symptoms and cognitive impairment, features of schizophrenia that are not driven by elevated dopamine. Compounds exhibiting a mechanism of action unlike that of current antipsychotics may improve the treatment and outcomes of patients with schizophrenia. The mechanism of action of CBD is unclear, but it does not appear to involve the direct antagonism of dopamine receptors. Human and animal research study findings indicate that CBD has antipsychotic properties. McGuire et al⁴ assessed the safety and effectiveness of CBD as an adjunctive treatment of schizophrenia.

Study design

• In this double-blind parallel-group trial conducted at 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Romania, and Poland, 88 patients with schizophrenia received CBD (1,000 mg/d; N = 43) or placebo (N = 45) as adjunct to the antipsychotic medication they had been prescribed. Patients had previously demonstrated at least a partial response to antipsychotic treatment, and were taking stable doses of an antipsychotic for ≥4 weeks.
• Evaluations of symptoms, general functioning, cognitive performance, and EPS were completed at baseline and on Days 8, 22, and 43 (± 3 days). Current substance use was assessed using a semi-structured interview, and reassessed at the end of treatment.
• The key endpoints were the patients’ level of functioning, severity of symptoms, and cognitive performance. Participants were assessed before and after treatment using the PANSS, the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF), and the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S, respectively).
• The clinicians’ impression of illness severity and symptom improvement and patient- or caregiver-reported impressions of general functioning and sleep also were noted.

Outcomes

• After 6 weeks, compared with the placebo group, the CBD group had lower levels of positive psychotic symptoms and were more likely to be rated as improved and as not severely unwell by the treating clinician. Patients in the CBD group also showed greater improvements in cognitive performance and in overall functioning, although these were not statistically significant.
• Similar levels of negative psychotic symptoms, overall psychopathology, and general psychopathology were observed in the CBD and placebo groups. The CBD group had a higher proportion of treatment responders (≥20% improvement in PANSS total score) than did the placebo group; however, the total number of responders per group was small (12 and 6 patients, respectively). At baseline, most patients in both groups were classified as moderately, markedly, or severely ill (83.4% in the CBD group vs 79.6% in placebo group). By the end of treatment, this decreased to 54.8% in the CBD group and 63.6% in the placebo group. Clinicians rated 78.6% of patients in the CBD group as “improved” on the CGI-I, compared with 54.6% of patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion

• CBD treatment adjunctive to antipsychotics was associated with significant effects on positive psychotic symptoms and on CGI-I and illness severity. Improvements in cognitive performance and level of overall functioning were also seen, but were not statistically significant.
• Although the effect on positive symptoms was modest, improvement occurred in patients being treated with appropriate dosages of antipsychotics, which suggests CBD provided benefits over and above the effect of antipsychotic treatment. Moreover, the changes in CGI-I and CGI-S scores indicated that the improvement was evident to the treating psychiatrists, and may therefore be clinically meaningful.

Continue to: Boggs DL, et al...

 

 

2. Boggs DL, Surti T, Gupta A, et al. The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on cognition and symptoms in outpatients with chronic schizophrenia a randomized placebo controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018;235(7):1923-1932.

Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive deficits in learning, recall, attention, working memory, and executive function. The cognitive impairments associated with schizophrenia (CIAS) are independent of phase of illness and often persist after other symptoms have been effectively treated. These impairments are the strongest predictor of functional outcome, even more so than psychotic symptoms.

Antipsychotics have limited efficacy for CIAS, which highlights the need for CIAS treatments that target other nondopaminergic neurotransmitter systems. The endocannabinoid system, which has been implicated in schizophrenia and in cognition, is a potential target. Several cannabinoids impair memory and attention. The main psychoactive component of marijuana, THC, is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) partial agonist. Administration of THC produces significant deficits in verbal learning, attention, and working memory.

Researchers have hypothesized that CB1R blockade or modulation of cannabinoid levels may offer a novel target for treating CIAS. Boggs et al⁵ compared the cognitive, symptomatic, and adverse effects of CBD vs placebo.

Study design

• In this 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted in Connecticut from September 2009 to May 2012, 36 stable patients with schizophrenia who were treated with antipsychotics were randomized to also receive oral CBD, 600 mg/d, or placebo.
• Cognition was assessed using the t score of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite and subscales at baseline and the end of study. An increase in MCCB t score indicates an improvement in cognitive ability. Psychotic symptoms were assessed using the PANSS at baseline, Week 2, Week 4, and Week 6.

Outcomes

• CBD augmentation did not improve MCCB performance or psychotic symptoms. There was no main effect of time or medication on MCCB composite score, but a significant drug × time effect was observed.
• Post-hoc analyses revealed that only patients who received placebo improved over time. The lack of a similar improvement with CBD might be related to the greater incidence of sedation among the CBD group (20%) vs the placebo group (5%). Both the MCCB composite score and reasoning and problem-solving domain scores were higher at baseline and endpoint for patients who received CBD, which suggests that the observed improvement in the placebo group could represent a regression to the mean.
• There was a significant decrease in PANSS scores over time, but there was no significant drug × time interaction.

Conclusion

• CBD augmentation was not associated with an improvement in MCCB score. This is consistent with data from other clinical trials^4,8 that suggested that CBD (at a wide range of doses) does not have significant beneficial effects on cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
• Additionally, CBD did not improve psychotic symptoms. These results are in contrast to published case reports^9,10 and 2 published clinical trials^3,4 that found CBD (800 mg/d) was as efficacious as amisulpride in reducing positive psychotic symptoms, and a small but statistically significant improvement in PANSS positive scores with CBD (1,000 mg/d) compared with placebo. However, these results are similar to those of a separate study¹¹ that evaluated the same 600-mg/d dose of CBD used by Boggs et al.⁵ At 600 mg/d, CBD produced very small improvements in PANSS total scores (~2.4) that were not statistically significant. A higher CBD dose may be needed to reduce psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: O’Neill A, et al...

 

 

3. O’Neill A, Wilson R, Blest-Hopley G, et al. Normalization of mediotemporal and prefrontal activity, and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity, may underlie antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol in psychosis. Psychol Med. 2020;1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719003519.

In addition to their key roles in the psychopathology of psychosis, the mediotemporal and prefrontal cortices are involved in learning and memory, and the striatum plays a role in encoding contextual information associated with memories. Because deficits in verbal learning and memory are one of the most commonly reported impairments in patients with psychosis, O’Neill et al⁶ used functional MRI (fMRI) to examine brain activity during a verbal learning task in patients with psychosis after taking CBD or placebo.

Study design

• In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study, researchers investigated the effects of a single dose of CBD in 15 patients with psychosis who were treated with antipsychotics. Three hours after taking a 600-mg dose of CBD or placebo, these participants were scanned using fMRI while performing a verbal paired associate (VPA) learning task. Nineteen healthy controls underwent fMRI in identical conditions, but without any medication administration.
• The fMRI measured brain activation using the blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) hemodynamic responses of the brain. The fMRI signals were studied in the mediotemporal, prefrontal, and striatal regions.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses were recorded online. The VPA task was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.
• Results during each phase of the VPA task were compared.

Outcomes

• While completing the VPA task after taking placebo, compared with healthy controls, patients with psychosis demonstrated a different pattern of activity in the prefrontal and mediotemporal brain areas. Specifically, during verbal encoding, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal regions. During verbal recall, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions, as well as increased mediotemporal-striatal functional connectivity.
• After participants received CBD, activation in these brain areas became more like the activation seen in controls. CBD attenuated dysfunction in these regions such that activation was intermediate between the placebo condition and the control group. CBD also attenuated functional connectivity between the hippocampus and striatum, and lead to reduced symptoms in patients with psychosis (as measured by PANSS total score).

Conclusion

• Altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions during verbal learning in patients with psychosis appeared to be partially normalized after a single 600-mg dose of CBD. Results also showed improvement in PANSS total score with CBD.
• These findings suggest that a single dose of CBD may partially attenuate the dysfunctional prefrontal and mediotemporal activation that is believed to underlie the dopamine dysfunction that leads to psychotic symptoms. These effects, along with a reduction in psychotic symptoms, suggest that normalization of altered prefrontal and mediotemporal function and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity may underlie the antipsychotic effects of CBD in established psychosis.

Continue to: Bhattacharyya S, et al...

 

 

4. Bhattacharyya S, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, et al. Effect of cannabidiol on medial temporal, midbrain, and striatal dysfunction in people at clinical high risk of psychosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(11):1107-1117.

Current preclinical models suggest that psychosis involves a disturbance of activity in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) that drives dopamine dysfunction in the striatum and midbrain. THC, which produces psychotomimetic effects, impacts the function of the striatum (verbal memoryand salience processing) andamygdala (emotional processing), and alters the functional connectivity of these regions. Compared with THC, CBD has broadly opposite neural and behavioral effects, including opposing effects on the activation of these regions. Bhattacharyya et al⁷ examined the neurocognitive mechanisms that underlie the therapeutic effects of CBD in psychosis and sought to understand whether CBD would attenuate functional abnormalities in the MTL, midbrain, and striatum.

Study design

• A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined 33 antipsychotic-naïve participants at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and 19 healthy controls. The CHR group was randomized to CBD, 600 mg, or placebo.
• Three hours after taking CBD or placebo, CHR participants were studied using fMRI while performing a VPA learning task, which engages verbal learning and recall in the MTL, midbrain and striatum. Control participants did not receive any medication but underwent fMRI while performing the VPA task.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses was recorded online. It was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.

Outcomes

• Brain activation was analyzed in 15 participants in the CBD group, 16 in the placebo group, and 19 in the control group. Activation during encoding was observed in the striatum (specifically, the right caudate). Activation during recall was observed in the midbrain and the MTL (specifically, the parahippocampus).
• Brain activation levels in all 3 regions were lowest in the placebo group, intermediate in the CBD group, and greatest in the healthy control group. For all participants, the total recall score was directly correlated with the activation level in the left MTL (parahippocampus) during recall.

Conclusion

• Relative to controls, CHR participants exhibited different levels of activation in several regions, including the 3 areas thought to be critical to the pathophysiology of psychosis: the striatum during verbal encoding, and the MTL and midbrain during verbal recall.
• Compared with those who received placebo, CHR participants who received CBD before completing the VPA task demonstrated greater levels of brain activation and higher recall score.
• These findings suggest that CBD may partially normalize alterations in MTL, striatal, and midbrain function associated with CHR of psychosis. Because these regions are implicated in the pathophysiology of psychosis, the impact of CBD at these sites may contribute to the therapeutic effects of CBD that have been reported by some patients with psychosis.

Continue to: Conflicting data highlights...

 

 

Conflicting data highlights the need for longer, larger studies

Research findings on the use of CBD for psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia have been conflicting. Some early research suggests that taking CBD 4 times daily for 4 weeks improves psychotic symptoms and might be as effective as the antipsychotic amisulpride. However, other early research suggests that taking CBD for 14 days is not beneficial. The conflicting results might be related to the CBD dose used and duration of treatment.

Davies and Bhattacharya¹² recently reviewed evidence regarding the efficacy of CBD as a potential novel treatment for psychotic disorders.They concluded that CBD represents a promising potential novel treatment for patients with psychosis. It also appears that CBD may improve the disease trajectory of individuals with early psychosis and comorbid cannabis misuse.¹³ CBD use has also been associated with a decrease in symptoms of psychosis and changes in brain activity during verbal memory tasks in patients at high risk of psychosis.⁶ However, before CBD can become a viable treatment option for psychosis, the promising findings in these initial clinical studies must be replicated in large-scale trials with appropriate treatment duration.

There has been increasing interest in the medicinal use of cannabidiol (CBD) for a wide variety of health conditions. CBD is one of more than 80 chemicals identified in the Cannabis sativa plant, otherwise known as marijuana or hemp. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana that produces a “high.” CBD, which is one of the most abundant cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa, does not produce any psychotomimetic effects.

The strongest scientific evidence supporting CBD for medicinal purposes is for its effectiveness in treating certain childhood epilepsy syndromes that typically do not respond to antiseizure medications. Currently, the only FDA-approved CBD product is a prescription oil cannabidiol (brand name: Epidiolex) for treating 2 types of epilepsy. Aside from Epidiolex, state laws governing the use of CBD vary. CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of psychiatric conditions, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dystonia, insomnia, and anxiety. Research supporting CBD’s benefits is limited, and the US National Library of Medicine’s MedlinePlus indicates there is “insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness” for these indications.¹

Despite having been legalized for medicinal use in many states, CBD is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance by the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Because of this classification, little has been done to regulate and oversee the sale of products containing CBD. In a 2017 study of 84 CBD products sold by 31 companies online, Bonn-Miller et al² found that nearly 70% percent of products were inaccurately labeled. In this study, blind testing found that only approximately 31% of products contained within 10% of the amount of CBD that was listed on the label. These researchers also found that some products contained components not listed on the label, including THC.²

The relationship between cannabis and psychosis or psychotic symptoms has been investigated for decades. Some recent studies that examined the effects of CBD on psychosis found that individuals who use CBD may experience fewer positive psychotic symptoms compared with placebo. This raises the question of whether CBD may have a role in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. One of the first studies on this issue was conducted by Leweke et al,³ who compared oral CBD, up to 800 mg/d, with the antipsychotic amisulpride, up to 800 mg/d, in 39 patients with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms. Amisulpride is used outside the United States to treat psychosis, but is FDA-approved only as an antiemetic. Patients were treated for 4 weeks. By Day 28, there was a significant reduction in positive symptoms as measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), with no significant difference in efficacy between the treatments. Similar findings emerged for negative, total, and general symptoms, with significant reductions by Day 28 in both treatment arms, and no significant between-treatment differences.

These findings were the first robust indication that CBD may have antipsychotic efficacy. However, of greater interest may be CBD’s markedly superior adverse effect profile. Predictably, amisulpride significantly increased extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), weight gain, and prolactin levels from baseline to Day 28. However, no significant change was found in any of these adverse effects in the CBD group, and the between-treatment difference was significant (all P < .01).

Here we review 4 recent studies that evaluated CBD as a treatment for schizophrenia. These studies are summarized in the Table.^4-7

Continue to: McGuire P, et al...

 

 

1. McGuire P, Robson P, Cubala WJ, et al. Cannabidiol (CBD) as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(3):225-231.

Antipsychotic medications act through blockade of central dopamine D2 receptors. For most patients, antipsychotics effectively treat positive psychotic symptoms, which are driven by elevated dopamine function. However, these medications have minimal effects on negative symptoms and cognitive impairment, features of schizophrenia that are not driven by elevated dopamine. Compounds exhibiting a mechanism of action unlike that of current antipsychotics may improve the treatment and outcomes of patients with schizophrenia. The mechanism of action of CBD is unclear, but it does not appear to involve the direct antagonism of dopamine receptors. Human and animal research study findings indicate that CBD has antipsychotic properties. McGuire et al⁴ assessed the safety and effectiveness of CBD as an adjunctive treatment of schizophrenia.

Study design

• In this double-blind parallel-group trial conducted at 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Romania, and Poland, 88 patients with schizophrenia received CBD (1,000 mg/d; N = 43) or placebo (N = 45) as adjunct to the antipsychotic medication they had been prescribed. Patients had previously demonstrated at least a partial response to antipsychotic treatment, and were taking stable doses of an antipsychotic for ≥4 weeks.
• Evaluations of symptoms, general functioning, cognitive performance, and EPS were completed at baseline and on Days 8, 22, and 43 (± 3 days). Current substance use was assessed using a semi-structured interview, and reassessed at the end of treatment.
• The key endpoints were the patients’ level of functioning, severity of symptoms, and cognitive performance. Participants were assessed before and after treatment using the PANSS, the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF), and the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S, respectively).
• The clinicians’ impression of illness severity and symptom improvement and patient- or caregiver-reported impressions of general functioning and sleep also were noted.

Outcomes

• After 6 weeks, compared with the placebo group, the CBD group had lower levels of positive psychotic symptoms and were more likely to be rated as improved and as not severely unwell by the treating clinician. Patients in the CBD group also showed greater improvements in cognitive performance and in overall functioning, although these were not statistically significant.
• Similar levels of negative psychotic symptoms, overall psychopathology, and general psychopathology were observed in the CBD and placebo groups. The CBD group had a higher proportion of treatment responders (≥20% improvement in PANSS total score) than did the placebo group; however, the total number of responders per group was small (12 and 6 patients, respectively). At baseline, most patients in both groups were classified as moderately, markedly, or severely ill (83.4% in the CBD group vs 79.6% in placebo group). By the end of treatment, this decreased to 54.8% in the CBD group and 63.6% in the placebo group. Clinicians rated 78.6% of patients in the CBD group as “improved” on the CGI-I, compared with 54.6% of patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion

• CBD treatment adjunctive to antipsychotics was associated with significant effects on positive psychotic symptoms and on CGI-I and illness severity. Improvements in cognitive performance and level of overall functioning were also seen, but were not statistically significant.
• Although the effect on positive symptoms was modest, improvement occurred in patients being treated with appropriate dosages of antipsychotics, which suggests CBD provided benefits over and above the effect of antipsychotic treatment. Moreover, the changes in CGI-I and CGI-S scores indicated that the improvement was evident to the treating psychiatrists, and may therefore be clinically meaningful.

Continue to: Boggs DL, et al...

 

 

2. Boggs DL, Surti T, Gupta A, et al. The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on cognition and symptoms in outpatients with chronic schizophrenia a randomized placebo controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018;235(7):1923-1932.

Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive deficits in learning, recall, attention, working memory, and executive function. The cognitive impairments associated with schizophrenia (CIAS) are independent of phase of illness and often persist after other symptoms have been effectively treated. These impairments are the strongest predictor of functional outcome, even more so than psychotic symptoms.

Antipsychotics have limited efficacy for CIAS, which highlights the need for CIAS treatments that target other nondopaminergic neurotransmitter systems. The endocannabinoid system, which has been implicated in schizophrenia and in cognition, is a potential target. Several cannabinoids impair memory and attention. The main psychoactive component of marijuana, THC, is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) partial agonist. Administration of THC produces significant deficits in verbal learning, attention, and working memory.

Researchers have hypothesized that CB1R blockade or modulation of cannabinoid levels may offer a novel target for treating CIAS. Boggs et al⁵ compared the cognitive, symptomatic, and adverse effects of CBD vs placebo.

Study design

• In this 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted in Connecticut from September 2009 to May 2012, 36 stable patients with schizophrenia who were treated with antipsychotics were randomized to also receive oral CBD, 600 mg/d, or placebo.
• Cognition was assessed using the t score of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite and subscales at baseline and the end of study. An increase in MCCB t score indicates an improvement in cognitive ability. Psychotic symptoms were assessed using the PANSS at baseline, Week 2, Week 4, and Week 6.

Outcomes

• CBD augmentation did not improve MCCB performance or psychotic symptoms. There was no main effect of time or medication on MCCB composite score, but a significant drug × time effect was observed.
• Post-hoc analyses revealed that only patients who received placebo improved over time. The lack of a similar improvement with CBD might be related to the greater incidence of sedation among the CBD group (20%) vs the placebo group (5%). Both the MCCB composite score and reasoning and problem-solving domain scores were higher at baseline and endpoint for patients who received CBD, which suggests that the observed improvement in the placebo group could represent a regression to the mean.
• There was a significant decrease in PANSS scores over time, but there was no significant drug × time interaction.

Conclusion

• CBD augmentation was not associated with an improvement in MCCB score. This is consistent with data from other clinical trials^4,8 that suggested that CBD (at a wide range of doses) does not have significant beneficial effects on cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
• Additionally, CBD did not improve psychotic symptoms. These results are in contrast to published case reports^9,10 and 2 published clinical trials^3,4 that found CBD (800 mg/d) was as efficacious as amisulpride in reducing positive psychotic symptoms, and a small but statistically significant improvement in PANSS positive scores with CBD (1,000 mg/d) compared with placebo. However, these results are similar to those of a separate study¹¹ that evaluated the same 600-mg/d dose of CBD used by Boggs et al.⁵ At 600 mg/d, CBD produced very small improvements in PANSS total scores (~2.4) that were not statistically significant. A higher CBD dose may be needed to reduce psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: O’Neill A, et al...

 

 

3. O’Neill A, Wilson R, Blest-Hopley G, et al. Normalization of mediotemporal and prefrontal activity, and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity, may underlie antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol in psychosis. Psychol Med. 2020;1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719003519.

In addition to their key roles in the psychopathology of psychosis, the mediotemporal and prefrontal cortices are involved in learning and memory, and the striatum plays a role in encoding contextual information associated with memories. Because deficits in verbal learning and memory are one of the most commonly reported impairments in patients with psychosis, O’Neill et al⁶ used functional MRI (fMRI) to examine brain activity during a verbal learning task in patients with psychosis after taking CBD or placebo.

Study design

• In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study, researchers investigated the effects of a single dose of CBD in 15 patients with psychosis who were treated with antipsychotics. Three hours after taking a 600-mg dose of CBD or placebo, these participants were scanned using fMRI while performing a verbal paired associate (VPA) learning task. Nineteen healthy controls underwent fMRI in identical conditions, but without any medication administration.
• The fMRI measured brain activation using the blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) hemodynamic responses of the brain. The fMRI signals were studied in the mediotemporal, prefrontal, and striatal regions.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses were recorded online. The VPA task was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.
• Results during each phase of the VPA task were compared.

Outcomes

• While completing the VPA task after taking placebo, compared with healthy controls, patients with psychosis demonstrated a different pattern of activity in the prefrontal and mediotemporal brain areas. Specifically, during verbal encoding, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal regions. During verbal recall, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions, as well as increased mediotemporal-striatal functional connectivity.
• After participants received CBD, activation in these brain areas became more like the activation seen in controls. CBD attenuated dysfunction in these regions such that activation was intermediate between the placebo condition and the control group. CBD also attenuated functional connectivity between the hippocampus and striatum, and lead to reduced symptoms in patients with psychosis (as measured by PANSS total score).

Conclusion

• Altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions during verbal learning in patients with psychosis appeared to be partially normalized after a single 600-mg dose of CBD. Results also showed improvement in PANSS total score with CBD.
• These findings suggest that a single dose of CBD may partially attenuate the dysfunctional prefrontal and mediotemporal activation that is believed to underlie the dopamine dysfunction that leads to psychotic symptoms. These effects, along with a reduction in psychotic symptoms, suggest that normalization of altered prefrontal and mediotemporal function and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity may underlie the antipsychotic effects of CBD in established psychosis.

Continue to: Bhattacharyya S, et al...

 

 

4. Bhattacharyya S, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, et al. Effect of cannabidiol on medial temporal, midbrain, and striatal dysfunction in people at clinical high risk of psychosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(11):1107-1117.

Current preclinical models suggest that psychosis involves a disturbance of activity in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) that drives dopamine dysfunction in the striatum and midbrain. THC, which produces psychotomimetic effects, impacts the function of the striatum (verbal memoryand salience processing) andamygdala (emotional processing), and alters the functional connectivity of these regions. Compared with THC, CBD has broadly opposite neural and behavioral effects, including opposing effects on the activation of these regions. Bhattacharyya et al⁷ examined the neurocognitive mechanisms that underlie the therapeutic effects of CBD in psychosis and sought to understand whether CBD would attenuate functional abnormalities in the MTL, midbrain, and striatum.

Study design

• A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined 33 antipsychotic-naïve participants at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and 19 healthy controls. The CHR group was randomized to CBD, 600 mg, or placebo.
• Three hours after taking CBD or placebo, CHR participants were studied using fMRI while performing a VPA learning task, which engages verbal learning and recall in the MTL, midbrain and striatum. Control participants did not receive any medication but underwent fMRI while performing the VPA task.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses was recorded online. It was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.

Outcomes

• Brain activation was analyzed in 15 participants in the CBD group, 16 in the placebo group, and 19 in the control group. Activation during encoding was observed in the striatum (specifically, the right caudate). Activation during recall was observed in the midbrain and the MTL (specifically, the parahippocampus).
• Brain activation levels in all 3 regions were lowest in the placebo group, intermediate in the CBD group, and greatest in the healthy control group. For all participants, the total recall score was directly correlated with the activation level in the left MTL (parahippocampus) during recall.

Conclusion

• Relative to controls, CHR participants exhibited different levels of activation in several regions, including the 3 areas thought to be critical to the pathophysiology of psychosis: the striatum during verbal encoding, and the MTL and midbrain during verbal recall.
• Compared with those who received placebo, CHR participants who received CBD before completing the VPA task demonstrated greater levels of brain activation and higher recall score.
• These findings suggest that CBD may partially normalize alterations in MTL, striatal, and midbrain function associated with CHR of psychosis. Because these regions are implicated in the pathophysiology of psychosis, the impact of CBD at these sites may contribute to the therapeutic effects of CBD that have been reported by some patients with psychosis.

Continue to: Conflicting data highlights...

 

 

Conflicting data highlights the need for longer, larger studies

Research findings on the use of CBD for psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia have been conflicting. Some early research suggests that taking CBD 4 times daily for 4 weeks improves psychotic symptoms and might be as effective as the antipsychotic amisulpride. However, other early research suggests that taking CBD for 14 days is not beneficial. The conflicting results might be related to the CBD dose used and duration of treatment.

Davies and Bhattacharya¹² recently reviewed evidence regarding the efficacy of CBD as a potential novel treatment for psychotic disorders.They concluded that CBD represents a promising potential novel treatment for patients with psychosis. It also appears that CBD may improve the disease trajectory of individuals with early psychosis and comorbid cannabis misuse.¹³ CBD use has also been associated with a decrease in symptoms of psychosis and changes in brain activity during verbal memory tasks in patients at high risk of psychosis.⁶ However, before CBD can become a viable treatment option for psychosis, the promising findings in these initial clinical studies must be replicated in large-scale trials with appropriate treatment duration.

There has been increasing interest in the medicinal use of cannabidiol (CBD) for a wide variety of health conditions. CBD is one of more than 80 chemicals identified in the Cannabis sativa plant, otherwise known as marijuana or hemp. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana that produces a “high.” CBD, which is one of the most abundant cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa, does not produce any psychotomimetic effects.

The strongest scientific evidence supporting CBD for medicinal purposes is for its effectiveness in treating certain childhood epilepsy syndromes that typically do not respond to antiseizure medications. Currently, the only FDA-approved CBD product is a prescription oil cannabidiol (brand name: Epidiolex) for treating 2 types of epilepsy. Aside from Epidiolex, state laws governing the use of CBD vary. CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of psychiatric conditions, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, dystonia, insomnia, and anxiety. Research supporting CBD’s benefits is limited, and the US National Library of Medicine’s MedlinePlus indicates there is “insufficient evidence to rate effectiveness” for these indications.¹

Despite having been legalized for medicinal use in many states, CBD is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance by the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Because of this classification, little has been done to regulate and oversee the sale of products containing CBD. In a 2017 study of 84 CBD products sold by 31 companies online, Bonn-Miller et al² found that nearly 70% percent of products were inaccurately labeled. In this study, blind testing found that only approximately 31% of products contained within 10% of the amount of CBD that was listed on the label. These researchers also found that some products contained components not listed on the label, including THC.²

The relationship between cannabis and psychosis or psychotic symptoms has been investigated for decades. Some recent studies that examined the effects of CBD on psychosis found that individuals who use CBD may experience fewer positive psychotic symptoms compared with placebo. This raises the question of whether CBD may have a role in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. One of the first studies on this issue was conducted by Leweke et al,³ who compared oral CBD, up to 800 mg/d, with the antipsychotic amisulpride, up to 800 mg/d, in 39 patients with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms. Amisulpride is used outside the United States to treat psychosis, but is FDA-approved only as an antiemetic. Patients were treated for 4 weeks. By Day 28, there was a significant reduction in positive symptoms as measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), with no significant difference in efficacy between the treatments. Similar findings emerged for negative, total, and general symptoms, with significant reductions by Day 28 in both treatment arms, and no significant between-treatment differences.

These findings were the first robust indication that CBD may have antipsychotic efficacy. However, of greater interest may be CBD’s markedly superior adverse effect profile. Predictably, amisulpride significantly increased extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), weight gain, and prolactin levels from baseline to Day 28. However, no significant change was found in any of these adverse effects in the CBD group, and the between-treatment difference was significant (all P < .01).

Here we review 4 recent studies that evaluated CBD as a treatment for schizophrenia. These studies are summarized in the Table.^4-7

Continue to: McGuire P, et al...

 

 

1. McGuire P, Robson P, Cubala WJ, et al. Cannabidiol (CBD) as an adjunctive therapy in schizophrenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(3):225-231.

Antipsychotic medications act through blockade of central dopamine D2 receptors. For most patients, antipsychotics effectively treat positive psychotic symptoms, which are driven by elevated dopamine function. However, these medications have minimal effects on negative symptoms and cognitive impairment, features of schizophrenia that are not driven by elevated dopamine. Compounds exhibiting a mechanism of action unlike that of current antipsychotics may improve the treatment and outcomes of patients with schizophrenia. The mechanism of action of CBD is unclear, but it does not appear to involve the direct antagonism of dopamine receptors. Human and animal research study findings indicate that CBD has antipsychotic properties. McGuire et al⁴ assessed the safety and effectiveness of CBD as an adjunctive treatment of schizophrenia.

Study design

• In this double-blind parallel-group trial conducted at 15 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Romania, and Poland, 88 patients with schizophrenia received CBD (1,000 mg/d; N = 43) or placebo (N = 45) as adjunct to the antipsychotic medication they had been prescribed. Patients had previously demonstrated at least a partial response to antipsychotic treatment, and were taking stable doses of an antipsychotic for ≥4 weeks.
• Evaluations of symptoms, general functioning, cognitive performance, and EPS were completed at baseline and on Days 8, 22, and 43 (± 3 days). Current substance use was assessed using a semi-structured interview, and reassessed at the end of treatment.
• The key endpoints were the patients’ level of functioning, severity of symptoms, and cognitive performance. Participants were assessed before and after treatment using the PANSS, the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF), and the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S, respectively).
• The clinicians’ impression of illness severity and symptom improvement and patient- or caregiver-reported impressions of general functioning and sleep also were noted.

Outcomes

• After 6 weeks, compared with the placebo group, the CBD group had lower levels of positive psychotic symptoms and were more likely to be rated as improved and as not severely unwell by the treating clinician. Patients in the CBD group also showed greater improvements in cognitive performance and in overall functioning, although these were not statistically significant.
• Similar levels of negative psychotic symptoms, overall psychopathology, and general psychopathology were observed in the CBD and placebo groups. The CBD group had a higher proportion of treatment responders (≥20% improvement in PANSS total score) than did the placebo group; however, the total number of responders per group was small (12 and 6 patients, respectively). At baseline, most patients in both groups were classified as moderately, markedly, or severely ill (83.4% in the CBD group vs 79.6% in placebo group). By the end of treatment, this decreased to 54.8% in the CBD group and 63.6% in the placebo group. Clinicians rated 78.6% of patients in the CBD group as “improved” on the CGI-I, compared with 54.6% of patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion

• CBD treatment adjunctive to antipsychotics was associated with significant effects on positive psychotic symptoms and on CGI-I and illness severity. Improvements in cognitive performance and level of overall functioning were also seen, but were not statistically significant.
• Although the effect on positive symptoms was modest, improvement occurred in patients being treated with appropriate dosages of antipsychotics, which suggests CBD provided benefits over and above the effect of antipsychotic treatment. Moreover, the changes in CGI-I and CGI-S scores indicated that the improvement was evident to the treating psychiatrists, and may therefore be clinically meaningful.

Continue to: Boggs DL, et al...

 

 

2. Boggs DL, Surti T, Gupta A, et al. The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on cognition and symptoms in outpatients with chronic schizophrenia a randomized placebo controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018;235(7):1923-1932.

Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive deficits in learning, recall, attention, working memory, and executive function. The cognitive impairments associated with schizophrenia (CIAS) are independent of phase of illness and often persist after other symptoms have been effectively treated. These impairments are the strongest predictor of functional outcome, even more so than psychotic symptoms.

Antipsychotics have limited efficacy for CIAS, which highlights the need for CIAS treatments that target other nondopaminergic neurotransmitter systems. The endocannabinoid system, which has been implicated in schizophrenia and in cognition, is a potential target. Several cannabinoids impair memory and attention. The main psychoactive component of marijuana, THC, is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) partial agonist. Administration of THC produces significant deficits in verbal learning, attention, and working memory.

Researchers have hypothesized that CB1R blockade or modulation of cannabinoid levels may offer a novel target for treating CIAS. Boggs et al⁵ compared the cognitive, symptomatic, and adverse effects of CBD vs placebo.

Study design

• In this 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted in Connecticut from September 2009 to May 2012, 36 stable patients with schizophrenia who were treated with antipsychotics were randomized to also receive oral CBD, 600 mg/d, or placebo.
• Cognition was assessed using the t score of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite and subscales at baseline and the end of study. An increase in MCCB t score indicates an improvement in cognitive ability. Psychotic symptoms were assessed using the PANSS at baseline, Week 2, Week 4, and Week 6.

Outcomes

• CBD augmentation did not improve MCCB performance or psychotic symptoms. There was no main effect of time or medication on MCCB composite score, but a significant drug × time effect was observed.
• Post-hoc analyses revealed that only patients who received placebo improved over time. The lack of a similar improvement with CBD might be related to the greater incidence of sedation among the CBD group (20%) vs the placebo group (5%). Both the MCCB composite score and reasoning and problem-solving domain scores were higher at baseline and endpoint for patients who received CBD, which suggests that the observed improvement in the placebo group could represent a regression to the mean.
• There was a significant decrease in PANSS scores over time, but there was no significant drug × time interaction.

Conclusion

• CBD augmentation was not associated with an improvement in MCCB score. This is consistent with data from other clinical trials^4,8 that suggested that CBD (at a wide range of doses) does not have significant beneficial effects on cognition in patients with schizophrenia.
• Additionally, CBD did not improve psychotic symptoms. These results are in contrast to published case reports^9,10 and 2 published clinical trials^3,4 that found CBD (800 mg/d) was as efficacious as amisulpride in reducing positive psychotic symptoms, and a small but statistically significant improvement in PANSS positive scores with CBD (1,000 mg/d) compared with placebo. However, these results are similar to those of a separate study¹¹ that evaluated the same 600-mg/d dose of CBD used by Boggs et al.⁵ At 600 mg/d, CBD produced very small improvements in PANSS total scores (~2.4) that were not statistically significant. A higher CBD dose may be needed to reduce psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: O’Neill A, et al...

 

 

3. O’Neill A, Wilson R, Blest-Hopley G, et al. Normalization of mediotemporal and prefrontal activity, and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity, may underlie antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol in psychosis. Psychol Med. 2020;1-11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719003519.

In addition to their key roles in the psychopathology of psychosis, the mediotemporal and prefrontal cortices are involved in learning and memory, and the striatum plays a role in encoding contextual information associated with memories. Because deficits in verbal learning and memory are one of the most commonly reported impairments in patients with psychosis, O’Neill et al⁶ used functional MRI (fMRI) to examine brain activity during a verbal learning task in patients with psychosis after taking CBD or placebo.

Study design

• In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study, researchers investigated the effects of a single dose of CBD in 15 patients with psychosis who were treated with antipsychotics. Three hours after taking a 600-mg dose of CBD or placebo, these participants were scanned using fMRI while performing a verbal paired associate (VPA) learning task. Nineteen healthy controls underwent fMRI in identical conditions, but without any medication administration.
• The fMRI measured brain activation using the blood oxygen level–dependent (BOLD) hemodynamic responses of the brain. The fMRI signals were studied in the mediotemporal, prefrontal, and striatal regions.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses were recorded online. The VPA task was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.
• Results during each phase of the VPA task were compared.

Outcomes

• While completing the VPA task after taking placebo, compared with healthy controls, patients with psychosis demonstrated a different pattern of activity in the prefrontal and mediotemporal brain areas. Specifically, during verbal encoding, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal regions. During verbal recall, the placebo group showed altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions, as well as increased mediotemporal-striatal functional connectivity.
• After participants received CBD, activation in these brain areas became more like the activation seen in controls. CBD attenuated dysfunction in these regions such that activation was intermediate between the placebo condition and the control group. CBD also attenuated functional connectivity between the hippocampus and striatum, and lead to reduced symptoms in patients with psychosis (as measured by PANSS total score).

Conclusion

• Altered activation in prefrontal and mediotemporal regions during verbal learning in patients with psychosis appeared to be partially normalized after a single 600-mg dose of CBD. Results also showed improvement in PANSS total score with CBD.
• These findings suggest that a single dose of CBD may partially attenuate the dysfunctional prefrontal and mediotemporal activation that is believed to underlie the dopamine dysfunction that leads to psychotic symptoms. These effects, along with a reduction in psychotic symptoms, suggest that normalization of altered prefrontal and mediotemporal function and mediotemporal-striatal connectivity may underlie the antipsychotic effects of CBD in established psychosis.

Continue to: Bhattacharyya S, et al...

 

 

4. Bhattacharyya S, Wilson R, Appiah-Kusi E, et al. Effect of cannabidiol on medial temporal, midbrain, and striatal dysfunction in people at clinical high risk of psychosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(11):1107-1117.

Current preclinical models suggest that psychosis involves a disturbance of activity in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) that drives dopamine dysfunction in the striatum and midbrain. THC, which produces psychotomimetic effects, impacts the function of the striatum (verbal memoryand salience processing) andamygdala (emotional processing), and alters the functional connectivity of these regions. Compared with THC, CBD has broadly opposite neural and behavioral effects, including opposing effects on the activation of these regions. Bhattacharyya et al⁷ examined the neurocognitive mechanisms that underlie the therapeutic effects of CBD in psychosis and sought to understand whether CBD would attenuate functional abnormalities in the MTL, midbrain, and striatum.

Study design

• A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined 33 antipsychotic-naïve participants at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and 19 healthy controls. The CHR group was randomized to CBD, 600 mg, or placebo.
• Three hours after taking CBD or placebo, CHR participants were studied using fMRI while performing a VPA learning task, which engages verbal learning and recall in the MTL, midbrain and striatum. Control participants did not receive any medication but underwent fMRI while performing the VPA task.
• The VPA task presented word pairs visually, and the accuracy of responses was recorded online. It was comprised of 3 conditions: encoding, recall, and baseline.

Outcomes

• Brain activation was analyzed in 15 participants in the CBD group, 16 in the placebo group, and 19 in the control group. Activation during encoding was observed in the striatum (specifically, the right caudate). Activation during recall was observed in the midbrain and the MTL (specifically, the parahippocampus).
• Brain activation levels in all 3 regions were lowest in the placebo group, intermediate in the CBD group, and greatest in the healthy control group. For all participants, the total recall score was directly correlated with the activation level in the left MTL (parahippocampus) during recall.

Conclusion

• Relative to controls, CHR participants exhibited different levels of activation in several regions, including the 3 areas thought to be critical to the pathophysiology of psychosis: the striatum during verbal encoding, and the MTL and midbrain during verbal recall.
• Compared with those who received placebo, CHR participants who received CBD before completing the VPA task demonstrated greater levels of brain activation and higher recall score.
• These findings suggest that CBD may partially normalize alterations in MTL, striatal, and midbrain function associated with CHR of psychosis. Because these regions are implicated in the pathophysiology of psychosis, the impact of CBD at these sites may contribute to the therapeutic effects of CBD that have been reported by some patients with psychosis.

Continue to: Conflicting data highlights...

 

 

Conflicting data highlights the need for longer, larger studies

Research findings on the use of CBD for psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia have been conflicting. Some early research suggests that taking CBD 4 times daily for 4 weeks improves psychotic symptoms and might be as effective as the antipsychotic amisulpride. However, other early research suggests that taking CBD for 14 days is not beneficial. The conflicting results might be related to the CBD dose used and duration of treatment.

Davies and Bhattacharya¹² recently reviewed evidence regarding the efficacy of CBD as a potential novel treatment for psychotic disorders.They concluded that CBD represents a promising potential novel treatment for patients with psychosis. It also appears that CBD may improve the disease trajectory of individuals with early psychosis and comorbid cannabis misuse.¹³ CBD use has also been associated with a decrease in symptoms of psychosis and changes in brain activity during verbal memory tasks in patients at high risk of psychosis.⁶ However, before CBD can become a viable treatment option for psychosis, the promising findings in these initial clinical studies must be replicated in large-scale trials with appropriate treatment duration.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Reports have emerged about the unique vulnerability of psychiatric hospitals to the ravages of COVID-19.

In a South Korea psychiatric hospital, 101 of 103 patients contracted SARS-CoV-2 during an outbreak; 7 eventually died.^1,2 This report, among a few others, have led to the development of psychiatric COVID-19–positive units (PCU). However, it remains highly unclear how many are currently open, where they are located, or what their operations are like.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear to us that, as a public health measure, it would be necessary to test all patients for COVID-19 who were being considered for admission to our inpatient psychiatric units. We knew that we could not allow a medically asymptomatic “covertly” COVID-19–positive patient to be introduced to the social community of our inpatient units because of the risks of transmission to other patients and staff.

In coordination with our health system infection prevention experts, we have therefore required a confirmed negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction nasal swab performed no more than 48 hours prior to the time/date of acute psychiatric inpatient admission. Furthermore, as part of the broad health system response and surge planning, we were asked by our respective incident command centers to begin planning for a Psychiatric COVID-19–positive Unit (PCU) that might allow us to safely care for a cohort of patients needing such hospitalization.

It is worth emphasizing that the typical patient who is a candidate for a PCU is so acutely psychiatrically ill that they cannot be managed in a less restrictive environment than an inpatient psychiatric unit and, at the same time, is likely to not be medically ill enough to warrant admission to an internal medicine service in a general acute care hospital.

We have identified eight principles and critical decision points that can help inpatient units plan for the safe care of COVID-19–positive patients on a PCU.

1. Triage: Patients admitted to a PCU should be medically stable, particularly with regard to COVID-19 and respiratory symptomatology. PCUs should establish clear criteria for admission and discharge (or medical transfer). Examples of potential exclusionary criteria to a PCU include:

• Respiratory distress, shortness of breath, hypoxia, requirement for supplemental oxygen, or requirement for respiratory therapy breathing treatments.
• Fever, or signs of sepsis, or systemic inflammatory response syndrome.
• Medical frailty, significant medical comorbidities, delirium, or altered mental status;
• Requirements for continuous vital sign monitoring or of a monitoring frequency beyond the capacity of the PCU.

Discharge criteria may also include a symptom-based strategy because emerging evidence suggests that patients may be less infectious by day 10-14 of the disease course,³ and viral lab testing is very sensitive and will be positive for periods of time after individuals are no longer infectious. The symptom-based strategy allows for patients to not require retesting prior to discharge. However, some receiving facilities (for example residential or skilled nursing facilities) may necessitate testing, in which case a testing-based strategy can be used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides guidelines for both types of strategies.⁴

2. Infection control and personal protective equipment: PCUs require modifications or departures from the typical inpatient free-ranging environment in which common areas are provided for patients to engage in a community of care, including group therapy (such as occupational, recreational, Alcoholics Anonymous, and social work groups).

• Isolation: PCUs must consider whether they will require patients to isolate to their rooms or to allow modified or limited access to “public” or “community” areas. While there do not appear to be standard recommendations from the CDC or other public health entities regarding negative pressure or any specific room ventilation requirements, it is prudent to work with local infectious disease experts on protocols. Important considerations include spatial planning for infection control areas to don and doff appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and appropriate workspace to prevent contamination of non–COVID-19 work areas. Approaches can include establishing clearly identified and visually demarcated infection control “zones” (often referred to as “hot, warm, and cold zones”) that correspond to specific PPE requirements for staff. In addition, individuals should eat in their own rooms or designated areas because use of common areas for meals can potentially lead to aerosolized spread of the virus.
• Cohorting: Generally, PCUs should consider admitting only COVID-19–positive patients to a PCU to avoid exposure to other patients. Hospitals and health systems should determine protocols and locations for testing and managing “patients under investigation” for COVID-19, which should precede admission to the PCU.
• PPE: It is important to clearly establish and communicate PPE requirements and procedures for direct physical contact versus no physical contact (for example, visual safety checks). Identify clear supply chains for PPE and hand sanitizer.

3. Medical management and consultation: PCUs should establish clear pathways for accessing consultation from medical consultants. It may be ideal, in addition to standard daily psychiatric physician rounding, to have daily internal medicine rounding and/or medical nursing staff working on the unit. Given the potential of COVID-19–positive patients to rapidly devolve from asymptomatic to acutely ill, it is necessary to establish protocols for the provision of urgent medical care 24/7 and streamlined processes for transfer to a medical unit.

Clear protocols should be established to address any potential signs of decompensation in the respiratory status of a PCU unit, including administration of oxygen and restrictions (or appropriate precautions) related to aerosolizing treatment such as nebulizers or positive airway pressure.

4. Code blue protocol: Any emergent medical issues, including acute respiratory decompensation, should trigger a Code Blue response that has been specifically designed for COVID-19–positive patients, including considerations for proper PPE during resuscitation efforts.

• Telehealth: Clinicians (such as physicians, social workers, occupational therapists) should leverage and maximize the use of telemedicine to minimize direct or prolonged exposure to infectious disease risks.
• Nursing: It is important to establish appropriate ratios of nursing and support staff for a COVID-19–positive psychiatry unit given the unique work flows related to isolation precautions and to ensure patient and staff safety. These ratios may take into account patient-specific needs, including the need for additional staff to perform constant observation for high-risk patients, management of agitated patients, and sufficient staff to allow for relief and break-time from PPE. Admission and routine care processes should be adapted in order to limit equipment entering the room, such as computer workstations on wheels.
• Medication administration procedures: Develop work flows related to PPE and infection control when retrieving and administering medications.
• Workspace: Designate appropriate workspace for PCU clinicians to access computers and documents and to minimize use of non–COVID-19 unit work areas.

6. Restraints and management of agitated patients: PCUs should develop plans for addressing agitated patients, including contingency plans for whether seclusion or restraints should be administered in the patient’s individual room or in a dedicated restraint room in the PCU. Staff training should include protocols specifically designed for managing agitated patients in the PCU.

7. Discharge processes: If patients remain medically well and clear their COVID-19 PCR tests, it is conceivable that they might be transferred to a non–COVID-19 psychiatric unit if sufficient isolation time has passed and the infectious disease consultants deem it appropriate. It is also possible that patients would be discharged from a PCU to home or other residential setting. Such patients should be assessed for ability to comply with continued self-quarantine if necessary. Discharge planning must take into consideration follow-up plans for COVID-19 illness and primary care appointments, as well as needed psychiatric follow-up.

8. Patients’ rights: The apparently highly infectious and transmissible nature of SARS-CoV-2 creates novel tensions between a wide range of individual rights and the rights of others. In addition to manifesting in our general society, there are potentially unique tensions in acute inpatient psychiatric settings. Certain patients’ rights may require modification in a PCU (for example, access to outdoor space, personal belongings, visitors, and possibly civil commitment judicial hearings). These discussions may require input from hospital compliance officers, ethics committees, risk managers, and the local department of mental health and also may be partly solved by using video communication platforms.

References

1. Kim MJ. “ ‘It was a medical disaster’: The psychiatric ward that saw 100 patients with new coronavirus.” Independent. 2020 Mar 1.

2. Korean Society of Infectious Diseases et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar 16;35(10):e112.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Symptom-based strategy to discontinue isolation for persons with COVID-19. Decision Memo. 2020 May 3.

4. He X et al. Nature Medicine. 2020. 26:672-5.
 

Dr. Cheung is associate medical director and chief quality officer at the Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at the University of California, Los Angeles. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Strouse is medical director, UCLA Stewart and Lynda Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital and Maddie Katz Professor at the UCLA department of psychiatry/Semel Institute. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Li is associate medical director of quality improvement at Yale-New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in Connecticut. She also serves as medical director of clinical operations at the Yale-New Haven Health System. Dr. Li is a 2019-2020 Health and Aging Policy Fellow and receives funding support from the program.

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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