Robyn Thom, MD

Advances in neuroimaging over the past 25 years have allowed for an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the structural and functional brain abnormalities associated with psychiatric disease.¹ It has been postulated that a better understanding of aberrant brain circuitry in psychiatric illness will be critical for transforming the diagnosis and treatment of these illnesses.² In fact, in 2008, the National Institute of Mental Health launched the Research Domain Criteria project to reformulate psychiatric diagnosis based on biologic underpinnings.³

In the midst of these scientific advances and the increased availability of neuroimaging, some private clinics have begun to offer routine brain scans as part of a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.^4-7 These clinics suggest that single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of the brain can provide objective, reliable psychiatric diagnoses. Unfortunately, using SPECT for psychiatric diagnosis lacks empirical support and carries risks, including exposing patients to radioisotopes and detracting from empirically validated treatments.⁸ Nonetheless, given the current diagnostic challenges in psychiatry, it is understandable that patients, parents, and clinicians alike have reported high receptivity to the use of neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment planning.⁹

While neuroimaging is central to the search for improved understanding of the biologic foundations of mental illness, progress in identifying biomarkers has been disappointing. There are currently no neuroimaging biomarkers that can reliably distinguish patients from controls, and no empirical evidence supports the use of neuroimaging in diagnosing psychiatric conditions.¹⁰ The current standard of clinical care is to use neuroimaging to diagnose neurologic diseases that are masquerading as psychiatric disorders. However, given the rapid advances and availability of this technology, determining if and when neuroimaging is clinically indicated will likely soon become increasingly complex. Prior to the widespread availability of this technology, it is worth considering the potential advantages and pitfalls to the adoption of neuroimaging in psychiatry. In this article, we:

• outline arguments that support the use of neuroimaging in psychiatry, and some of the limitations
• discuss special considerations for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and forensic psychiatry
• suggest guidelines for best-practice models based on the current evidence.

Advantages of widespread use of neuroimaging in psychiatry

Currently, neuroimaging is used in psychiatry to rule out neurologic disorders such as seizures, tumors, or infectious illness that might be causing psychiatric symptoms. If neuroimaging were routinely used for this purpose, one theoretical advantage would be increased neurologic diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, increased adoption of neuroimaging may eventually help broaden the phenotype of neurologic disorders. In other words, psychiatric symptoms may be more common in neurologic disorders than we currently recognize. A second advantage might be that early and definitive exclusion of a structural neurologic disorder may help patients and families more readily accept a psychiatric diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

In the future, if biomarkers of psychiatric illness are discerned, using neuroimaging for diagnosis, assessment, and treatment planning may help increase objectivity and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. Currently, psychiatric diagnoses are based on emotional and behavioral self-report and clinical observations. It is not uncommon for patients to receive different diagnoses and even conflicting recommendations from different clinicians. Tools that aid objective diagnosis will likely improve the reliability of the diagnosis and help in assessing treatment response. Also, concrete biomarkers that respond to treatment may help align psychiatric disorders with other medical illnesses, thereby decreasing stigma.

Cautions against routine neuroimaging

There are several potential pitfalls to the routine use of neuroimaging in psychiatry. First, clinical psychiatry is centered on clinical acumen and the doctor–patient relationship. Many psychiatric clinicians are not accustomed to using lab measures or tests to support the diagnostic process or treatment planning. Psychiatrists may be resistant to technologies that threaten clinical acumen, the power of the therapeutic relationship, and the value of getting to know patients over time.¹¹ Overreliance on neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis also carries the risk of becoming overly reductionistic. This approach may overemphasize the biologic aspects of mental illness, while excluding social and psychological factors that may be responsive to treatment.

Second, the widespread use of neuroimaging is likely to result in many incidental findings. This is especially relevant because abnormality does not establish causality. Incidental findings may cause unnecessary anxiety for patients and families, particularly if there are minimal treatment options.

Continue to: Third, it remains unclear...

Third, it remains unclear whether widespread neuroimaging in psychiatry will be cost-effective. Unless imaging results are tied to effective treatments, neuroimaging is unlikely to result in cost savings. Presently, patients who can afford out-of-pocket care might be able to access neuroimaging. If neuroimaging were shown to improve clinical outcomes but remains costly, this unequal distribution of resources would create an ethical quandary.

Finally, neuroimaging is complex and almost certainly not as objective as one might hope. Interpreting images will require specialized knowledge and skills that are beyond those of currently certified general psychiatrists.¹² Because there is a great deal of overlap in brain anomalies across psychiatric illnesses, it is unclear whether using neuroimaging for diagnostic purposes will eclipse a thorough clinical assessment. For example, the amygdala and insula show activation across a range of anxiety disorders. Abnormal amygdala activation has also been reported in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and psychopathy.¹³

In addition, psychiatric comorbidity is common. It is unclear how much neuro­imaging will add diagnostically when a patient presents with multiple psychiatric disorders. Comorbidity of psychiatric and neurologic disorders also is common. A neurologic illness that is detectable by structural neuroimaging does not necessarily exclude the presence of a psychiatric disorder. This poses yet another challenge to developing reliable, valid neuroimaging techniques for clinical use.

Areas of controversy

First-episode psychosis. Current practice guidelines for neuroimaging in patients with FEP are inconsistent. The Canadian Choosing Wisely Guidelines recommend against routinely ordering neuroimaging in first-episode psychoses in the absence of signs or symptoms that suggest intracranial pathology.¹⁴ Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia recommends ordering neuroimaging in patients for whom the clinical picture is unclear or when examination reveals abnormal findings.¹⁵ In contrast, the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis recommend that all patients with FEP receive brain MRI.¹⁶ Freudenreich et al¹⁷ describe 2 philosophies regarding the initial medical workup of FEP: (1) a comprehensive medical workup requires extensive testing, and (2) in their natural histories, most illnesses eventually declare themselves.

Despite this inconsistency, the overall evidence does not seem to support routine brain imaging for patients with FEP in the absence of neurologic or cognitive impairment. A systematic review of 16 studies assessing the clinical utility of structural neuroimaging in FEP found that there was “insufficient evidence to suggest that brain imaging should be routinely ordered for patients presenting with first-episode psychosis without associated neurological or cognitive impairment.”¹⁸

Continue to: Forensic psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry. Two academic disciplines—neuroethics and neurolaw—attempt to study how medications and neuroimaging could impact forensic psychiatry.¹⁹ And in this golden age of neuroscience, psychiatrists specializing in forensics may be increasingly asked to opine on brain scans. This requires specific thoughtfulness and attention because forensic psychiatrists must “distinguish neuroscience from neuro-nonsense.”²⁰ These specialists will need to consider the Daubert standard, which resulted from the 1993 case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.²¹ In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence must be “‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community” to be admissible. According to the Daubert standard, “evidentiary reliability” is based on scientific validity.²¹

How should we use neuroimaging?

While neuroimaging is a quickly evolving research tool, empirical support for its clinical use remains limited. The hope is that future neuroimaging research will yield biomarker profiles for mental illness, identification of risk factors, and predictors of vulnerability and treatment response, which will allow for more targeted treatments.¹

The current standard of clinical care for using neuroimaging in psychiatry is to diagnose neurologic diseases. Although there are no consensus guidelines for when to order imaging, it is reasonable to consider imaging when a patient has²²:

• abrupt onset of symptoms
• change in level of consciousness
• deficits in neurologic or cognitive examination
• a history of head trauma (with loss of consciousness), whole-brain radiation, neuro­logic comorbidities, or cancer
• late onset of symptoms (age >50)
• atypical presentation of psychiatric illness.

Advances in neuroimaging over the past 25 years have allowed for an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the structural and functional brain abnormalities associated with psychiatric disease.¹ It has been postulated that a better understanding of aberrant brain circuitry in psychiatric illness will be critical for transforming the diagnosis and treatment of these illnesses.² In fact, in 2008, the National Institute of Mental Health launched the Research Domain Criteria project to reformulate psychiatric diagnosis based on biologic underpinnings.³

In the midst of these scientific advances and the increased availability of neuroimaging, some private clinics have begun to offer routine brain scans as part of a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.^4-7 These clinics suggest that single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of the brain can provide objective, reliable psychiatric diagnoses. Unfortunately, using SPECT for psychiatric diagnosis lacks empirical support and carries risks, including exposing patients to radioisotopes and detracting from empirically validated treatments.⁸ Nonetheless, given the current diagnostic challenges in psychiatry, it is understandable that patients, parents, and clinicians alike have reported high receptivity to the use of neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment planning.⁹

While neuroimaging is central to the search for improved understanding of the biologic foundations of mental illness, progress in identifying biomarkers has been disappointing. There are currently no neuroimaging biomarkers that can reliably distinguish patients from controls, and no empirical evidence supports the use of neuroimaging in diagnosing psychiatric conditions.¹⁰ The current standard of clinical care is to use neuroimaging to diagnose neurologic diseases that are masquerading as psychiatric disorders. However, given the rapid advances and availability of this technology, determining if and when neuroimaging is clinically indicated will likely soon become increasingly complex. Prior to the widespread availability of this technology, it is worth considering the potential advantages and pitfalls to the adoption of neuroimaging in psychiatry. In this article, we:

• outline arguments that support the use of neuroimaging in psychiatry, and some of the limitations
• discuss special considerations for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and forensic psychiatry
• suggest guidelines for best-practice models based on the current evidence.

Advantages of widespread use of neuroimaging in psychiatry

Currently, neuroimaging is used in psychiatry to rule out neurologic disorders such as seizures, tumors, or infectious illness that might be causing psychiatric symptoms. If neuroimaging were routinely used for this purpose, one theoretical advantage would be increased neurologic diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, increased adoption of neuroimaging may eventually help broaden the phenotype of neurologic disorders. In other words, psychiatric symptoms may be more common in neurologic disorders than we currently recognize. A second advantage might be that early and definitive exclusion of a structural neurologic disorder may help patients and families more readily accept a psychiatric diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

In the future, if biomarkers of psychiatric illness are discerned, using neuroimaging for diagnosis, assessment, and treatment planning may help increase objectivity and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. Currently, psychiatric diagnoses are based on emotional and behavioral self-report and clinical observations. It is not uncommon for patients to receive different diagnoses and even conflicting recommendations from different clinicians. Tools that aid objective diagnosis will likely improve the reliability of the diagnosis and help in assessing treatment response. Also, concrete biomarkers that respond to treatment may help align psychiatric disorders with other medical illnesses, thereby decreasing stigma.

Cautions against routine neuroimaging

There are several potential pitfalls to the routine use of neuroimaging in psychiatry. First, clinical psychiatry is centered on clinical acumen and the doctor–patient relationship. Many psychiatric clinicians are not accustomed to using lab measures or tests to support the diagnostic process or treatment planning. Psychiatrists may be resistant to technologies that threaten clinical acumen, the power of the therapeutic relationship, and the value of getting to know patients over time.¹¹ Overreliance on neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis also carries the risk of becoming overly reductionistic. This approach may overemphasize the biologic aspects of mental illness, while excluding social and psychological factors that may be responsive to treatment.

Second, the widespread use of neuroimaging is likely to result in many incidental findings. This is especially relevant because abnormality does not establish causality. Incidental findings may cause unnecessary anxiety for patients and families, particularly if there are minimal treatment options.

Continue to: Third, it remains unclear...

Third, it remains unclear whether widespread neuroimaging in psychiatry will be cost-effective. Unless imaging results are tied to effective treatments, neuroimaging is unlikely to result in cost savings. Presently, patients who can afford out-of-pocket care might be able to access neuroimaging. If neuroimaging were shown to improve clinical outcomes but remains costly, this unequal distribution of resources would create an ethical quandary.

Finally, neuroimaging is complex and almost certainly not as objective as one might hope. Interpreting images will require specialized knowledge and skills that are beyond those of currently certified general psychiatrists.¹² Because there is a great deal of overlap in brain anomalies across psychiatric illnesses, it is unclear whether using neuroimaging for diagnostic purposes will eclipse a thorough clinical assessment. For example, the amygdala and insula show activation across a range of anxiety disorders. Abnormal amygdala activation has also been reported in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and psychopathy.¹³

In addition, psychiatric comorbidity is common. It is unclear how much neuro­imaging will add diagnostically when a patient presents with multiple psychiatric disorders. Comorbidity of psychiatric and neurologic disorders also is common. A neurologic illness that is detectable by structural neuroimaging does not necessarily exclude the presence of a psychiatric disorder. This poses yet another challenge to developing reliable, valid neuroimaging techniques for clinical use.

Areas of controversy

First-episode psychosis. Current practice guidelines for neuroimaging in patients with FEP are inconsistent. The Canadian Choosing Wisely Guidelines recommend against routinely ordering neuroimaging in first-episode psychoses in the absence of signs or symptoms that suggest intracranial pathology.¹⁴ Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia recommends ordering neuroimaging in patients for whom the clinical picture is unclear or when examination reveals abnormal findings.¹⁵ In contrast, the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis recommend that all patients with FEP receive brain MRI.¹⁶ Freudenreich et al¹⁷ describe 2 philosophies regarding the initial medical workup of FEP: (1) a comprehensive medical workup requires extensive testing, and (2) in their natural histories, most illnesses eventually declare themselves.

Despite this inconsistency, the overall evidence does not seem to support routine brain imaging for patients with FEP in the absence of neurologic or cognitive impairment. A systematic review of 16 studies assessing the clinical utility of structural neuroimaging in FEP found that there was “insufficient evidence to suggest that brain imaging should be routinely ordered for patients presenting with first-episode psychosis without associated neurological or cognitive impairment.”¹⁸

Continue to: Forensic psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry. Two academic disciplines—neuroethics and neurolaw—attempt to study how medications and neuroimaging could impact forensic psychiatry.¹⁹ And in this golden age of neuroscience, psychiatrists specializing in forensics may be increasingly asked to opine on brain scans. This requires specific thoughtfulness and attention because forensic psychiatrists must “distinguish neuroscience from neuro-nonsense.”²⁰ These specialists will need to consider the Daubert standard, which resulted from the 1993 case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.²¹ In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence must be “‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community” to be admissible. According to the Daubert standard, “evidentiary reliability” is based on scientific validity.²¹

How should we use neuroimaging?

While neuroimaging is a quickly evolving research tool, empirical support for its clinical use remains limited. The hope is that future neuroimaging research will yield biomarker profiles for mental illness, identification of risk factors, and predictors of vulnerability and treatment response, which will allow for more targeted treatments.¹

The current standard of clinical care for using neuroimaging in psychiatry is to diagnose neurologic diseases. Although there are no consensus guidelines for when to order imaging, it is reasonable to consider imaging when a patient has²²:

• abrupt onset of symptoms
• change in level of consciousness
• deficits in neurologic or cognitive examination
• a history of head trauma (with loss of consciousness), whole-brain radiation, neuro­logic comorbidities, or cancer
• late onset of symptoms (age >50)
• atypical presentation of psychiatric illness.

Advances in neuroimaging over the past 25 years have allowed for an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the structural and functional brain abnormalities associated with psychiatric disease.¹ It has been postulated that a better understanding of aberrant brain circuitry in psychiatric illness will be critical for transforming the diagnosis and treatment of these illnesses.² In fact, in 2008, the National Institute of Mental Health launched the Research Domain Criteria project to reformulate psychiatric diagnosis based on biologic underpinnings.³

In the midst of these scientific advances and the increased availability of neuroimaging, some private clinics have begun to offer routine brain scans as part of a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation.^4-7 These clinics suggest that single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) of the brain can provide objective, reliable psychiatric diagnoses. Unfortunately, using SPECT for psychiatric diagnosis lacks empirical support and carries risks, including exposing patients to radioisotopes and detracting from empirically validated treatments.⁸ Nonetheless, given the current diagnostic challenges in psychiatry, it is understandable that patients, parents, and clinicians alike have reported high receptivity to the use of neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis and treatment planning.⁹

While neuroimaging is central to the search for improved understanding of the biologic foundations of mental illness, progress in identifying biomarkers has been disappointing. There are currently no neuroimaging biomarkers that can reliably distinguish patients from controls, and no empirical evidence supports the use of neuroimaging in diagnosing psychiatric conditions.¹⁰ The current standard of clinical care is to use neuroimaging to diagnose neurologic diseases that are masquerading as psychiatric disorders. However, given the rapid advances and availability of this technology, determining if and when neuroimaging is clinically indicated will likely soon become increasingly complex. Prior to the widespread availability of this technology, it is worth considering the potential advantages and pitfalls to the adoption of neuroimaging in psychiatry. In this article, we:

• outline arguments that support the use of neuroimaging in psychiatry, and some of the limitations
• discuss special considerations for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and forensic psychiatry
• suggest guidelines for best-practice models based on the current evidence.

Advantages of widespread use of neuroimaging in psychiatry

Currently, neuroimaging is used in psychiatry to rule out neurologic disorders such as seizures, tumors, or infectious illness that might be causing psychiatric symptoms. If neuroimaging were routinely used for this purpose, one theoretical advantage would be increased neurologic diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, increased adoption of neuroimaging may eventually help broaden the phenotype of neurologic disorders. In other words, psychiatric symptoms may be more common in neurologic disorders than we currently recognize. A second advantage might be that early and definitive exclusion of a structural neurologic disorder may help patients and families more readily accept a psychiatric diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

In the future, if biomarkers of psychiatric illness are discerned, using neuroimaging for diagnosis, assessment, and treatment planning may help increase objectivity and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. Currently, psychiatric diagnoses are based on emotional and behavioral self-report and clinical observations. It is not uncommon for patients to receive different diagnoses and even conflicting recommendations from different clinicians. Tools that aid objective diagnosis will likely improve the reliability of the diagnosis and help in assessing treatment response. Also, concrete biomarkers that respond to treatment may help align psychiatric disorders with other medical illnesses, thereby decreasing stigma.

Cautions against routine neuroimaging

There are several potential pitfalls to the routine use of neuroimaging in psychiatry. First, clinical psychiatry is centered on clinical acumen and the doctor–patient relationship. Many psychiatric clinicians are not accustomed to using lab measures or tests to support the diagnostic process or treatment planning. Psychiatrists may be resistant to technologies that threaten clinical acumen, the power of the therapeutic relationship, and the value of getting to know patients over time.¹¹ Overreliance on neuroimaging for psychiatric diagnosis also carries the risk of becoming overly reductionistic. This approach may overemphasize the biologic aspects of mental illness, while excluding social and psychological factors that may be responsive to treatment.

Second, the widespread use of neuroimaging is likely to result in many incidental findings. This is especially relevant because abnormality does not establish causality. Incidental findings may cause unnecessary anxiety for patients and families, particularly if there are minimal treatment options.

Continue to: Third, it remains unclear...

Third, it remains unclear whether widespread neuroimaging in psychiatry will be cost-effective. Unless imaging results are tied to effective treatments, neuroimaging is unlikely to result in cost savings. Presently, patients who can afford out-of-pocket care might be able to access neuroimaging. If neuroimaging were shown to improve clinical outcomes but remains costly, this unequal distribution of resources would create an ethical quandary.

Finally, neuroimaging is complex and almost certainly not as objective as one might hope. Interpreting images will require specialized knowledge and skills that are beyond those of currently certified general psychiatrists.¹² Because there is a great deal of overlap in brain anomalies across psychiatric illnesses, it is unclear whether using neuroimaging for diagnostic purposes will eclipse a thorough clinical assessment. For example, the amygdala and insula show activation across a range of anxiety disorders. Abnormal amygdala activation has also been reported in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and psychopathy.¹³

In addition, psychiatric comorbidity is common. It is unclear how much neuro­imaging will add diagnostically when a patient presents with multiple psychiatric disorders. Comorbidity of psychiatric and neurologic disorders also is common. A neurologic illness that is detectable by structural neuroimaging does not necessarily exclude the presence of a psychiatric disorder. This poses yet another challenge to developing reliable, valid neuroimaging techniques for clinical use.

Areas of controversy

First-episode psychosis. Current practice guidelines for neuroimaging in patients with FEP are inconsistent. The Canadian Choosing Wisely Guidelines recommend against routinely ordering neuroimaging in first-episode psychoses in the absence of signs or symptoms that suggest intracranial pathology.¹⁴ Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia recommends ordering neuroimaging in patients for whom the clinical picture is unclear or when examination reveals abnormal findings.¹⁵ In contrast, the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis recommend that all patients with FEP receive brain MRI.¹⁶ Freudenreich et al¹⁷ describe 2 philosophies regarding the initial medical workup of FEP: (1) a comprehensive medical workup requires extensive testing, and (2) in their natural histories, most illnesses eventually declare themselves.

Despite this inconsistency, the overall evidence does not seem to support routine brain imaging for patients with FEP in the absence of neurologic or cognitive impairment. A systematic review of 16 studies assessing the clinical utility of structural neuroimaging in FEP found that there was “insufficient evidence to suggest that brain imaging should be routinely ordered for patients presenting with first-episode psychosis without associated neurological or cognitive impairment.”¹⁸

Continue to: Forensic psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry. Two academic disciplines—neuroethics and neurolaw—attempt to study how medications and neuroimaging could impact forensic psychiatry.¹⁹ And in this golden age of neuroscience, psychiatrists specializing in forensics may be increasingly asked to opine on brain scans. This requires specific thoughtfulness and attention because forensic psychiatrists must “distinguish neuroscience from neuro-nonsense.”²⁰ These specialists will need to consider the Daubert standard, which resulted from the 1993 case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.²¹ In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence must be “‘generally accepted’ as reliable in the relevant scientific community” to be admissible. According to the Daubert standard, “evidentiary reliability” is based on scientific validity.²¹

How should we use neuroimaging?

While neuroimaging is a quickly evolving research tool, empirical support for its clinical use remains limited. The hope is that future neuroimaging research will yield biomarker profiles for mental illness, identification of risk factors, and predictors of vulnerability and treatment response, which will allow for more targeted treatments.¹

The current standard of clinical care for using neuroimaging in psychiatry is to diagnose neurologic diseases. Although there are no consensus guidelines for when to order imaging, it is reasonable to consider imaging when a patient has²²:

• abrupt onset of symptoms
• change in level of consciousness
• deficits in neurologic or cognitive examination
• a history of head trauma (with loss of consciousness), whole-brain radiation, neuro­logic comorbidities, or cancer
• late onset of symptoms (age >50)
• atypical presentation of psychiatric illness.

Performance enhancement in sports (“doping”) dates back to Ancient Greece. This was an era when Olympic athletes would attempt to improve their physical performance by consuming magic potions, herbal medications, and even exotic meats such as sheep testicles—a delicacy high in testosterone. Advances in medical and pharmaceutical technologies have increased both the range of enhancement agents available and their efficacy, leading to the development of anti-doping agencies and routine screening for doping in athletics. This has led to the renouncement of titles, medals, and financial sponsorship of athletes found to have been using prohibited substances during competition.

While doping in elite athletes often forms the nidus of media attention, the pressure to compete and perform at, or even beyond, one’s potential extends into many facets of today’s achievementfocused society. In the face of these pressures, individuals are increasingly seeking medications to enhance their performance across numerous domains, including cognitive, athletic, and artistic endeavors. Medication classes used to enhance performance include stimulants, which increase attention, executive function, and energy; cholinesterase inhibitors, which may ameliorate age-related memory decline; and beta-blockers, which decrease physiologic symptoms of anxiety and have been demonstrated to be beneficial for musical performance.¹ Fifty-three percent of college athletes report using prescription medications to enhance athletic performance,² and most college students who take stimulants without a prescription use them to study (84%) or stay awake (51%).³

Pharmacologic performance enhancement is the use of medications by healthy individuals to improve function in the absence of mental illness. Psychiatrists are increasingly finding themselves in the controversial position of “gatekeeper” of these medications for enhancement purposes. In this article we:

• outline arguments that support the use of psychopharmacology for performance enhancement, as well as some serious concerns with this practice
• discuss special considerations for pediatric populations and the risk of malpractice when prescribing for performance enhancement
• offer practice guidelines for approaching requests for psychopharmacologic performance enhancement.

Performance enhancement: The wave of the future?

The ethical principle that supports providing medication for performance enhancement is beneficence, the promotion of the patient’s well-being. In other words, it is a physician’s duty to help his or her patient in need. Individuals seeking performance enhancement typically present with suffering, and the principle of beneficence would call upon the psychiatrist to help ameliorate that suffering. Furthermore, patients who seek performance enhancement may present with impairing “subsyndromal” psychiatric symptoms (for example, low-grade attentional difficulty that occurs only in one setting), which, even if they do not rise to the threshold of a DSM diagnosis, may improve with psychiatric medications.

Using medical knowledge and skills beyond the traditional physician duty to diagnose and treat medical conditions is not unprecedented (eg, when surgeons perform cosmetic enhancement). Might elective enhancement of cognition and psychological performance through the judicious use of medication be part of the future of psychiatry? If cognitive and emotional enhancement becomes a more widely accepted standard of care, might this increase both individual and societal innovation and productivity?

Dilemma: Cautions against performance enhancement

One of the major cautions against prescribing psychotropics for the purpose of performance enhancement is the lack of clearly supported efficacy. Psychiatric medications generally are studied in individuals who meet criteria for mental illness, and they are FDA-approved for use in ill persons. It may be erroneous to extrapolate that a medication that improves symptoms in a patient with an illness would achieve the same target effect in a healthy individual. For example, data on whether stimulants provide neurocognitive enhancement in healthy individuals without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is mixed, and these agents may even promote risky behavior in healthy controls.⁴ Furthermore, dopamine agonism may compress cognitive performance in both directions,⁵ as it has been observed that methylphenidate improves executive function in healthy controls, but is less beneficial for those with strong executive function at baseline.⁶

In the face of unclear benefit, it is particularly important to consider the risk of medications used for performance enhancement. Pharmacologic performance enhancement in individuals without psychopathology can be considered an “elective” intervention, for which individuals typically tolerate less risk. Physical risks, including medication-related adverse effects, must be considered, particularly in settings where there may be temptation to use more than prescribed, or to divert medication to others who may use it without medical monitoring. In addition to physical harm, there may be psychological harm associated with prescribing performance enhancers, such as pathologizing variants of “normal,” diminishing one’s sense of self-efficacy, or decreasing one’s ability to bear failure.

Continue to: Finally, there are ethical quandaries

Finally, there are ethical quandaries regarding using medications for performance enhancement. Widespread adoption of pharmacologic performance enhancement may lead to implicit coercion for all individuals to enhance their abilities. As a greater proportion of society receives pharmacologic enhancement, society as a whole faces stronger pressures to seek pharmacologic enhancement, ultimately constricting an individual’s freedom of choice to enhance.⁶ In this setting, distributive justice would become a consideration, because insurance companies are unlikely to reimburse for medications used for enhancement,⁷ which would give an advantage to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Research shows that children from higher socioeconomic communities and from states with higher academic standards are more likely to use stimulants.⁸

Areas of controversy

Pediatric populations. There are special considerations when prescribing performance-enhancing medications for children and adolescents. First, such prescribing may inhibit normal child development, shifting the focus away from the normative tasks of social and emotional development that occur through leisure and creativity, experimentation, and play to an emphasis on performance and outcomes-based achievement.⁹ Second, during childhood and adolescence, one develops a sense of his or her identity, morals, and values. Taking a medication during childhood to enhance performance may inhibit the process of learning to tolerate failure, become aware of one’s weaknesses, and value effort in addition to outcome.

Malpractice risk. Practicing medicine beyond the scope of one’s expertise is unethical and unlawful. In the past 30 years, medical malpractice has become one of the most difficult health care issues in the U.S.¹⁰ In addition to billions of dollars in legal fees and court costs, medical malpractice premiums in the U.S. total more than $5 billion annually,¹¹ and “defensive medicine”— procedures performed to protect against litigation—is estimated to cost more than $14 billion a year.¹²

When considering performance-enhancing treatment, it is the physician’s duty to conduct a diagnostic assessment, including noting target symptoms that are interfering with the patient’s function, and to tailor such treatment toward measurable goals and outcomes. Aside from medication, this could include a therapeutic approach to improving performance that might include cognitive-behavioral therapy and promotion of a healthy diet and exercise.

Treatment rises to the level of malpractice when there is a dereliction of duty that directly leads to damages.¹³ Part of a physician’s duty is to educate patients about the pros and cons of different treatment options. For performance-enhancing medications, the risks of addiction and dependence are adverse effects that require discussion. And for a pediatric patient, this would require the guardian’s engagement and understanding.

Continue to: What to do if you decide to prescribe

Inevitably, the decision to prescribe psychotropic medications for performance enhancement is a physician-specific one. Certainly, psychiatrists should not feel obligated to prescribe performance enhancers. Given our current state of pharmacology, it is unclear whether medications would be helpful in the absence of psychopathology. When deciding whether to prescribe for performance enhancement in the absence of psychopathology, we suggest first carefully considering how to maintain the ethical value of nonmaleficence by weighing both the potential physical and psychologic harms of prescribing as well as the legal risks and rules of applicable sport governing bodies.

For a psychiatrist who chooses to prescribe for performance enhancement, we recommend conducting a thorough psychiatric assessment to determine whether the patient has a treatable mental illness. If so, then effective treatment of that illness should take priority. Before prescribing, the psychiatrist and patient should discuss the patient’s specific performance goals and how to measure them.

Any prescription for a performance-enhancing medication should be given in conjunction with nonpharmacologic approaches, including optimizing diet, exercise, and sleep. Therapy to address problem-solving techniques and skills to cope with stress may also be appropriate. The patient and psychiatrist should engage in regular follow-up to assess the efficacy of the medication, as well as its safety and tolerability. Finally, if a medication is not efficacious as a performance enhancer, then both the patient and psychiatrist should be open to re-evaluating the treatment plan, and when appropriate, stopping the medication.

Performance enhancement in sports (“doping”) dates back to Ancient Greece. This was an era when Olympic athletes would attempt to improve their physical performance by consuming magic potions, herbal medications, and even exotic meats such as sheep testicles—a delicacy high in testosterone. Advances in medical and pharmaceutical technologies have increased both the range of enhancement agents available and their efficacy, leading to the development of anti-doping agencies and routine screening for doping in athletics. This has led to the renouncement of titles, medals, and financial sponsorship of athletes found to have been using prohibited substances during competition.

While doping in elite athletes often forms the nidus of media attention, the pressure to compete and perform at, or even beyond, one’s potential extends into many facets of today’s achievementfocused society. In the face of these pressures, individuals are increasingly seeking medications to enhance their performance across numerous domains, including cognitive, athletic, and artistic endeavors. Medication classes used to enhance performance include stimulants, which increase attention, executive function, and energy; cholinesterase inhibitors, which may ameliorate age-related memory decline; and beta-blockers, which decrease physiologic symptoms of anxiety and have been demonstrated to be beneficial for musical performance.¹ Fifty-three percent of college athletes report using prescription medications to enhance athletic performance,² and most college students who take stimulants without a prescription use them to study (84%) or stay awake (51%).³

Pharmacologic performance enhancement is the use of medications by healthy individuals to improve function in the absence of mental illness. Psychiatrists are increasingly finding themselves in the controversial position of “gatekeeper” of these medications for enhancement purposes. In this article we:

• outline arguments that support the use of psychopharmacology for performance enhancement, as well as some serious concerns with this practice
• discuss special considerations for pediatric populations and the risk of malpractice when prescribing for performance enhancement
• offer practice guidelines for approaching requests for psychopharmacologic performance enhancement.

Performance enhancement: The wave of the future?

The ethical principle that supports providing medication for performance enhancement is beneficence, the promotion of the patient’s well-being. In other words, it is a physician’s duty to help his or her patient in need. Individuals seeking performance enhancement typically present with suffering, and the principle of beneficence would call upon the psychiatrist to help ameliorate that suffering. Furthermore, patients who seek performance enhancement may present with impairing “subsyndromal” psychiatric symptoms (for example, low-grade attentional difficulty that occurs only in one setting), which, even if they do not rise to the threshold of a DSM diagnosis, may improve with psychiatric medications.

Using medical knowledge and skills beyond the traditional physician duty to diagnose and treat medical conditions is not unprecedented (eg, when surgeons perform cosmetic enhancement). Might elective enhancement of cognition and psychological performance through the judicious use of medication be part of the future of psychiatry? If cognitive and emotional enhancement becomes a more widely accepted standard of care, might this increase both individual and societal innovation and productivity?

Dilemma: Cautions against performance enhancement

One of the major cautions against prescribing psychotropics for the purpose of performance enhancement is the lack of clearly supported efficacy. Psychiatric medications generally are studied in individuals who meet criteria for mental illness, and they are FDA-approved for use in ill persons. It may be erroneous to extrapolate that a medication that improves symptoms in a patient with an illness would achieve the same target effect in a healthy individual. For example, data on whether stimulants provide neurocognitive enhancement in healthy individuals without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is mixed, and these agents may even promote risky behavior in healthy controls.⁴ Furthermore, dopamine agonism may compress cognitive performance in both directions,⁵ as it has been observed that methylphenidate improves executive function in healthy controls, but is less beneficial for those with strong executive function at baseline.⁶

In the face of unclear benefit, it is particularly important to consider the risk of medications used for performance enhancement. Pharmacologic performance enhancement in individuals without psychopathology can be considered an “elective” intervention, for which individuals typically tolerate less risk. Physical risks, including medication-related adverse effects, must be considered, particularly in settings where there may be temptation to use more than prescribed, or to divert medication to others who may use it without medical monitoring. In addition to physical harm, there may be psychological harm associated with prescribing performance enhancers, such as pathologizing variants of “normal,” diminishing one’s sense of self-efficacy, or decreasing one’s ability to bear failure.

Continue to: Finally, there are ethical quandaries

Finally, there are ethical quandaries regarding using medications for performance enhancement. Widespread adoption of pharmacologic performance enhancement may lead to implicit coercion for all individuals to enhance their abilities. As a greater proportion of society receives pharmacologic enhancement, society as a whole faces stronger pressures to seek pharmacologic enhancement, ultimately constricting an individual’s freedom of choice to enhance.⁶ In this setting, distributive justice would become a consideration, because insurance companies are unlikely to reimburse for medications used for enhancement,⁷ which would give an advantage to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Research shows that children from higher socioeconomic communities and from states with higher academic standards are more likely to use stimulants.⁸

Areas of controversy

Pediatric populations. There are special considerations when prescribing performance-enhancing medications for children and adolescents. First, such prescribing may inhibit normal child development, shifting the focus away from the normative tasks of social and emotional development that occur through leisure and creativity, experimentation, and play to an emphasis on performance and outcomes-based achievement.⁹ Second, during childhood and adolescence, one develops a sense of his or her identity, morals, and values. Taking a medication during childhood to enhance performance may inhibit the process of learning to tolerate failure, become aware of one’s weaknesses, and value effort in addition to outcome.

Malpractice risk. Practicing medicine beyond the scope of one’s expertise is unethical and unlawful. In the past 30 years, medical malpractice has become one of the most difficult health care issues in the U.S.¹⁰ In addition to billions of dollars in legal fees and court costs, medical malpractice premiums in the U.S. total more than $5 billion annually,¹¹ and “defensive medicine”— procedures performed to protect against litigation—is estimated to cost more than $14 billion a year.¹²

When considering performance-enhancing treatment, it is the physician’s duty to conduct a diagnostic assessment, including noting target symptoms that are interfering with the patient’s function, and to tailor such treatment toward measurable goals and outcomes. Aside from medication, this could include a therapeutic approach to improving performance that might include cognitive-behavioral therapy and promotion of a healthy diet and exercise.

Treatment rises to the level of malpractice when there is a dereliction of duty that directly leads to damages.¹³ Part of a physician’s duty is to educate patients about the pros and cons of different treatment options. For performance-enhancing medications, the risks of addiction and dependence are adverse effects that require discussion. And for a pediatric patient, this would require the guardian’s engagement and understanding.

Continue to: What to do if you decide to prescribe

Inevitably, the decision to prescribe psychotropic medications for performance enhancement is a physician-specific one. Certainly, psychiatrists should not feel obligated to prescribe performance enhancers. Given our current state of pharmacology, it is unclear whether medications would be helpful in the absence of psychopathology. When deciding whether to prescribe for performance enhancement in the absence of psychopathology, we suggest first carefully considering how to maintain the ethical value of nonmaleficence by weighing both the potential physical and psychologic harms of prescribing as well as the legal risks and rules of applicable sport governing bodies.

For a psychiatrist who chooses to prescribe for performance enhancement, we recommend conducting a thorough psychiatric assessment to determine whether the patient has a treatable mental illness. If so, then effective treatment of that illness should take priority. Before prescribing, the psychiatrist and patient should discuss the patient’s specific performance goals and how to measure them.

Any prescription for a performance-enhancing medication should be given in conjunction with nonpharmacologic approaches, including optimizing diet, exercise, and sleep. Therapy to address problem-solving techniques and skills to cope with stress may also be appropriate. The patient and psychiatrist should engage in regular follow-up to assess the efficacy of the medication, as well as its safety and tolerability. Finally, if a medication is not efficacious as a performance enhancer, then both the patient and psychiatrist should be open to re-evaluating the treatment plan, and when appropriate, stopping the medication.

Performance enhancement in sports (“doping”) dates back to Ancient Greece. This was an era when Olympic athletes would attempt to improve their physical performance by consuming magic potions, herbal medications, and even exotic meats such as sheep testicles—a delicacy high in testosterone. Advances in medical and pharmaceutical technologies have increased both the range of enhancement agents available and their efficacy, leading to the development of anti-doping agencies and routine screening for doping in athletics. This has led to the renouncement of titles, medals, and financial sponsorship of athletes found to have been using prohibited substances during competition.

While doping in elite athletes often forms the nidus of media attention, the pressure to compete and perform at, or even beyond, one’s potential extends into many facets of today’s achievementfocused society. In the face of these pressures, individuals are increasingly seeking medications to enhance their performance across numerous domains, including cognitive, athletic, and artistic endeavors. Medication classes used to enhance performance include stimulants, which increase attention, executive function, and energy; cholinesterase inhibitors, which may ameliorate age-related memory decline; and beta-blockers, which decrease physiologic symptoms of anxiety and have been demonstrated to be beneficial for musical performance.¹ Fifty-three percent of college athletes report using prescription medications to enhance athletic performance,² and most college students who take stimulants without a prescription use them to study (84%) or stay awake (51%).³

Pharmacologic performance enhancement is the use of medications by healthy individuals to improve function in the absence of mental illness. Psychiatrists are increasingly finding themselves in the controversial position of “gatekeeper” of these medications for enhancement purposes. In this article we:

• outline arguments that support the use of psychopharmacology for performance enhancement, as well as some serious concerns with this practice
• discuss special considerations for pediatric populations and the risk of malpractice when prescribing for performance enhancement
• offer practice guidelines for approaching requests for psychopharmacologic performance enhancement.

Performance enhancement: The wave of the future?

The ethical principle that supports providing medication for performance enhancement is beneficence, the promotion of the patient’s well-being. In other words, it is a physician’s duty to help his or her patient in need. Individuals seeking performance enhancement typically present with suffering, and the principle of beneficence would call upon the psychiatrist to help ameliorate that suffering. Furthermore, patients who seek performance enhancement may present with impairing “subsyndromal” psychiatric symptoms (for example, low-grade attentional difficulty that occurs only in one setting), which, even if they do not rise to the threshold of a DSM diagnosis, may improve with psychiatric medications.

Using medical knowledge and skills beyond the traditional physician duty to diagnose and treat medical conditions is not unprecedented (eg, when surgeons perform cosmetic enhancement). Might elective enhancement of cognition and psychological performance through the judicious use of medication be part of the future of psychiatry? If cognitive and emotional enhancement becomes a more widely accepted standard of care, might this increase both individual and societal innovation and productivity?

Dilemma: Cautions against performance enhancement

One of the major cautions against prescribing psychotropics for the purpose of performance enhancement is the lack of clearly supported efficacy. Psychiatric medications generally are studied in individuals who meet criteria for mental illness, and they are FDA-approved for use in ill persons. It may be erroneous to extrapolate that a medication that improves symptoms in a patient with an illness would achieve the same target effect in a healthy individual. For example, data on whether stimulants provide neurocognitive enhancement in healthy individuals without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is mixed, and these agents may even promote risky behavior in healthy controls.⁴ Furthermore, dopamine agonism may compress cognitive performance in both directions,⁵ as it has been observed that methylphenidate improves executive function in healthy controls, but is less beneficial for those with strong executive function at baseline.⁶

In the face of unclear benefit, it is particularly important to consider the risk of medications used for performance enhancement. Pharmacologic performance enhancement in individuals without psychopathology can be considered an “elective” intervention, for which individuals typically tolerate less risk. Physical risks, including medication-related adverse effects, must be considered, particularly in settings where there may be temptation to use more than prescribed, or to divert medication to others who may use it without medical monitoring. In addition to physical harm, there may be psychological harm associated with prescribing performance enhancers, such as pathologizing variants of “normal,” diminishing one’s sense of self-efficacy, or decreasing one’s ability to bear failure.

Continue to: Finally, there are ethical quandaries

Finally, there are ethical quandaries regarding using medications for performance enhancement. Widespread adoption of pharmacologic performance enhancement may lead to implicit coercion for all individuals to enhance their abilities. As a greater proportion of society receives pharmacologic enhancement, society as a whole faces stronger pressures to seek pharmacologic enhancement, ultimately constricting an individual’s freedom of choice to enhance.⁶ In this setting, distributive justice would become a consideration, because insurance companies are unlikely to reimburse for medications used for enhancement,⁷ which would give an advantage to individuals with higher socioeconomic status. Research shows that children from higher socioeconomic communities and from states with higher academic standards are more likely to use stimulants.⁸

Areas of controversy

Pediatric populations. There are special considerations when prescribing performance-enhancing medications for children and adolescents. First, such prescribing may inhibit normal child development, shifting the focus away from the normative tasks of social and emotional development that occur through leisure and creativity, experimentation, and play to an emphasis on performance and outcomes-based achievement.⁹ Second, during childhood and adolescence, one develops a sense of his or her identity, morals, and values. Taking a medication during childhood to enhance performance may inhibit the process of learning to tolerate failure, become aware of one’s weaknesses, and value effort in addition to outcome.

Malpractice risk. Practicing medicine beyond the scope of one’s expertise is unethical and unlawful. In the past 30 years, medical malpractice has become one of the most difficult health care issues in the U.S.¹⁰ In addition to billions of dollars in legal fees and court costs, medical malpractice premiums in the U.S. total more than $5 billion annually,¹¹ and “defensive medicine”— procedures performed to protect against litigation—is estimated to cost more than $14 billion a year.¹²

When considering performance-enhancing treatment, it is the physician’s duty to conduct a diagnostic assessment, including noting target symptoms that are interfering with the patient’s function, and to tailor such treatment toward measurable goals and outcomes. Aside from medication, this could include a therapeutic approach to improving performance that might include cognitive-behavioral therapy and promotion of a healthy diet and exercise.

Treatment rises to the level of malpractice when there is a dereliction of duty that directly leads to damages.¹³ Part of a physician’s duty is to educate patients about the pros and cons of different treatment options. For performance-enhancing medications, the risks of addiction and dependence are adverse effects that require discussion. And for a pediatric patient, this would require the guardian’s engagement and understanding.

Continue to: What to do if you decide to prescribe

Inevitably, the decision to prescribe psychotropic medications for performance enhancement is a physician-specific one. Certainly, psychiatrists should not feel obligated to prescribe performance enhancers. Given our current state of pharmacology, it is unclear whether medications would be helpful in the absence of psychopathology. When deciding whether to prescribe for performance enhancement in the absence of psychopathology, we suggest first carefully considering how to maintain the ethical value of nonmaleficence by weighing both the potential physical and psychologic harms of prescribing as well as the legal risks and rules of applicable sport governing bodies.

For a psychiatrist who chooses to prescribe for performance enhancement, we recommend conducting a thorough psychiatric assessment to determine whether the patient has a treatable mental illness. If so, then effective treatment of that illness should take priority. Before prescribing, the psychiatrist and patient should discuss the patient’s specific performance goals and how to measure them.

Any prescription for a performance-enhancing medication should be given in conjunction with nonpharmacologic approaches, including optimizing diet, exercise, and sleep. Therapy to address problem-solving techniques and skills to cope with stress may also be appropriate. The patient and psychiatrist should engage in regular follow-up to assess the efficacy of the medication, as well as its safety and tolerability. Finally, if a medication is not efficacious as a performance enhancer, then both the patient and psychiatrist should be open to re-evaluating the treatment plan, and when appropriate, stopping the medication.