Mental Health

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have been conducting an extra hour of Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health. Virtual Rounds has been an opportunity to discuss cases around a spectrum of clinical management issues with respect to depression, bipolar disorder, and a spectrum of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and generalized anxiety disorder. How to apply the calculus of risk-benefit decision-making around management of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period has been the cornerstone of the work at our center for over 2 decades.

When we went virtual at our center in the early Spring, we decided to keep the format of our faculty rounds the way they have been for years and to sustain cohesiveness of our program during the pandemic. But we thought the needs of pregnant and postpartum women warranted being addressed in a context more specific to COVID-19, and also that reproductive psychiatrists and other clinicians could learn from each other about novel issues coming up for this group of patients during the pandemic. With that backdrop, Marlene Freeman, MD, and I founded “Virtual Rounds at the Center” to respond to queries from our colleagues across the country; we do this just after our own rounds on Wednesdays at 2:00 p.m.

As the pandemic has progressed, Virtual Rounds has blossomed into a virtual community on the Zoom platform, where social workers, psychologists, nurse prescribers, psychiatrists, and obstetricians discuss the needs of pregnant and postpartum women specific to COVID-19. Frequently, our discussions involve a review of the risks and benefits of treatment before, during, and after pregnancy.

Seemingly, week to week, more and more colleagues raise questions about the treatment of anxiety and insomnia during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I’ve spoken in previous columns about the enhanced use of telemedicine. Telemedicine not only facilitates efforts like Virtual Rounds and our ability to reach out to colleagues across the country and share cases, but also has allowed us to keep even closer tabs on the emotional well-being of our pregnant and postpartum women during COVID-19.

The question is not just about the effects of a medicine that a woman might take to treat anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy, but the experience of the pandemic per se, which we are measuring in multiple studies now using a variety of psychological instruments that patients complete. The pandemic is unequivocally taking a still unquantified toll on the mental health of Americans and potentially on the next generation to come.

Midcycle awakening during pregnancy

Complaints of insomnia and midcycle awakening during pregnancy are not new – it is the rule, rather than the exception for many pregnant women, particularly later in pregnancy. We have unequivocally seen a worsening of complaints of sleep disruption including insomnia and midcycle awakening during the pandemic that is greater than what we have seen previously. Both patients and colleagues have asked us the safest ways to manage it. One of the first things we consider when we hear about insomnia is whether it is part of an underlying mood disorder. While we see primary insomnia clinically, it really is important to remember that insomnia can be part and parcel of an underlying mood disorder.

With that in mind, what are the options? During the pandemic, we’ve seen an increased use of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) for patients who cannot initiate sleep, which has a very strong evidence base for effectiveness as a first-line intervention for many.

If a patient has an incomplete response to CBT-I, what might be pursued next? In our center, we have a low threshold for using low doses of benzodiazepines, such as lorazepam or clonazepam, because the majority of data do not support an increased risk of major congenital malformations even when used in the first trimester. It is quite common to see medicines such as newer nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics such as Ambien CR (zolpidem) or Lunesta (eszopiclone) used by our colleagues in ob.gyn. The reproductive safety data on those medicines are particularly sparse, and they may have greater risk of cognitive side effects the next day, so we tend to avoid them.

Another sometimes-forgotten option to consider is using low doses of tricyclic antidepressants (i.e., 10-25 mg of nortriptyline at bedtime), with tricyclics having a 40-year history and at least one pooled analysis showing the absence of increased risk for major congenital malformations when used. This may be a very easy way of managing insomnia, with low-dose tricyclics having an anxiolytic effect as well.

Anxiety during pregnancy

The most common rise in symptoms during COVID-19 for women who are pregnant or post partum has been an increase in anxiety. Women present with a spectrum of concerns leading to anxiety symptoms in the context of the pandemic. Earlier on in the pandemic, concerns focused mostly on how to stay healthy, and how to mitigate risk and not catch SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, as well as the very complex issues that were playing out in real time as hospital systems were figuring out how to manage pregnant women in labor and to keep both them and staff safe. Over time, anxiety has shifted to still staying safe during the pandemic and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy outcomes. The No. 1 concern is what the implications of COVID-19 disease are on mother and child. New mothers also are anxious about how they will practically navigate life with a newborn in the postpartum setting.

Early on in the pandemic, some hospital systems severely limited who was in the room with a woman during labor, potentially impeding the wishes of women during delivery who would have wanted their loved ones and/or a doula present, as an example. With enhanced testing available now, protocols have since relaxed in many hospitals to allow partners – but not a team – to remain in the hospital during the labor process. Still, the prospect of delivering during a pandemic is undoubtedly a source of anxiety for some women.

This sort of anxiety, particularly in patients with preexisting anxiety disorders, can be particularly challenging. Fortunately, there has been a rapid increase over the last several years of digital apps to mitigate anxiety. While many of them have not been systematically studied, the data on biobehavioral intervention for anxiety is enormous, and this should be used as first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate symptoms; so many women would prefer to avoid pharmacological intervention during pregnancy, if possible, to avoid fetal drug exposure. For patients who meet criteria for frank anxiety disorder, other nonpharmacologic interventions such as CBT have been shown to be effective.

Frequently, we see women who are experiencing levels of anxiety where nonpharmacological interventions have an incomplete response, and colleagues have asked about the safest way to treat these patients. As has been discussed in multiple previous columns, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be thought of sooner rather than later, particularly with medicines with good reproductive safety data such as sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.

We also reported over 15 years ago that at least 30%-40% of women presenting with histories of recurrent major depression at the beginning of pregnancy had comorbid anxiety disorders, and that the use of benzodiazepines in that population in addition to SSRIs was exceedingly common, with doses of approximately 0.5-1.5 mg of clonazepam or lorazepam being standard fare. Again, this is very appropriate treatment to mitigate anxiety symptoms because now have enough data as a field that support the existence of adverse outcomes associated with untreated anxiety during pregnancy in terms of both adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, higher rates of preterm birth, and other obstetric complications. Hence, managing anxiety during pregnancy should be considered like managing a toxic exposure – the same way that one would be concerned about anything else that a pregnant woman could be exposed to.

Lastly, although no atypical antipsychotic has been approved for the treatment of anxiety, its use off label is extremely common. More and more data support the absence of a signal of teratogenicity across the family of molecules including atypical antipsychotics. Beyond potential use of atypical antipsychotics, at Virtual Rounds last week, a colleague asked about the use of gabapentin in a patient who was diagnosed with substance use disorder and who had inadvertently conceived on gabapentin, which was being used to treat both anxiety and insomnia. We have typically avoided the use of gabapentin during pregnancy because prospective data have been limited to relatively small case series and one report, with a total of exposures in roughly the 300 range.

However, our colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health have recently published an article that looked at the United States Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) dataset, which has been used to publish other articles addressing atypical antipsychotics, SSRIs, lithium, and pharmacovigilance investigations among other important topics. In this study, the database was used to look specifically at 4,642 pregnancies with gabapentin exposure relative to 1,744,447 unexposed pregnancies, without a significant finding for increased risk for major congenital malformations.

The question of an increased risk of cardiac malformations and of increased risk for obstetric complications are difficult to untangle from anxiety and depression, as they also are associated with those same outcomes. With that said, the analysis is a welcome addition to our knowledge base for a medicine used more widely to treat symptoms such as anxiety and insomnia in the general population, with a question mark around where it may fit into the algorithm during pregnancy.

In our center, gabapentin still would not be used as a first-line treatment for the management of anxiety or insomnia during pregnancy. But these new data still are reassuring for patients who come in, frequently with unplanned pregnancies. It is an important reminder to those of us taking care of patients during the pandemic to review use of contraception, because although data are unavailable specific to the period of the pandemic, what is clear is that, even prior to COVID-19, 50% of pregnancies in America were unplanned. Addressing issues of reliable use of contraception, particularly during the pandemic, is that much more important.

In this particular case, our clinician colleague in Virtual Rounds decided to continue gabapentin across pregnancy in the context of these reassuring data, but others may choose to discontinue or pursue some of the other treatment options noted above.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

Delayed health care brought on by the pandemic is taking its toll on patients, a survey of primary care doctors shows. 

More than half (56%) of responding clinicians reported seeing a decline in patient health because of delayed or inaccessible care amid the pandemic, according to the results of the latest survey by the Larry A. Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative. The survey was conducted in mid-October and the results were published online Nov. 17.  

In addition, 37% of respondents said their patients with chronic conditions showed “noticeably worse health resulting from the pandemic.” And a resounding 85% said patient mental health had worsened. 

“I think it’s worse than we thought,” said Rebecca Etz, PhD, codirector of the Larry Green Center. “It’s the outcome of not sufficiently sending resources to primary care either before or during the pandemic.” According to Dr. Etz, survey respondents noted substantial increases in patient weight gain as well as weight loss, anxiety and depression, sleep issues, domestic abuse, and poor oral and eye health, among others.

One clinician from Pennsylvania wrote: “Patients are becoming sicker during the pandemic. I’m seeing more uncontrolled [diabetes]and new [patients with diabetes]. They prefer telehealth yet [have] no access to glucose monitoring or a blood pressure cuff. I am concerned about patients’ isolation and mental health. People are delaying care.”

Now, with COVID numbers peaking across much of the country, many clinicians are trying to close the gap in care with telehealth – something they’re more prepared to do now than they were in March. Over two-thirds of practices are using telehealth for visits to keep up with patients who have stable chronic conditions, according to the survey.

Over 60% of physicians report using telehealth for mental health visits. But a much smaller number – only 16% of respondents – said their practice had added staff to help manage the rising number of behavioral and mental health cases. About one-third (35%) of practices say they’re not financially able to take on new staff.

“We’ve been looking for more ways for patients to do self-support. A big part of chronic disease is health behaviors,” Alex Krist, MD, MPH, a family doctor in Fairfax, Va., and chairperson of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said in an interview. And unfortunately, on top of limited access to basic care, healthy habits that are essential to managing many chronic conditions have become more difficult and less consistent during the pandemic. 

The survey – the 22nd iteration in a series of surveys the Green Center and the Primary Care Collaborative have conducted – received 580 respondents from 47 states and Guam. Over two-thirds of respondents were primary care physicians (MDs and DOs). Over half were owners, partners, or employees of a private practice, 66% of which were family medicine practices. And one fifth of respondents provided care in a rural area.

Funding and support for primary care has been wildly insufficient, Dr. Etz said in an interview. If that doesn’t change, patient health, clinic staffing, and public health strategies amid the pandemic will continue to suffer.

“When you think of the COVID vaccine, who do you think is going to be sending that out?” Dr. Etz asked. “If we don’t bolster primary care now how are they going to handle that.”
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

On Nov. 9, the Biden-Harris administration announced the members of its COVID-19 Advisory Board. Among them were many esteemed infectious disease and public health experts – encouraging, given that, for now, the COVID-19 pandemic shows no signs of slowing down. Not among them was a mental health professional.

As psychiatrists, we did not find this omission surprising, given the sidelined role our specialty too often plays among medical professionals. But we did find it disappointing. Not having a single behavioral health provider on the advisory board will prove to be a mistake that could affect millions of Americans.

Studies continue to roll in showing that patients with COVID-19 can present during and after infection with neuropsychiatric symptoms, including delirium, psychosis, and anxiety. In July, a meta-analysis published in The Lancet regarding the neuropsychological outcomes of earlier diseases caused by coronaviruses – severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome – suggested that, in the short term, close to one-quarter of patients experienced confusion representative of delirium. In the long term, following recovery, respondents frequently reported emotional lability, impaired concentration, and traumatic memories. Additionally, more recent research published in The Lancet suggests that rates of psychiatric disorders, dementia, and insomnia are significantly higher among survivors of COVID-19. This study echoes the findings of an article in JAMA from September that reported that, among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19, mortality rates were higher for those who had previously been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. And overall, the pandemic has been associated with significantly increased rates of anxiety and depression symptoms.

Although this research is preliminary, it would be irresponsible – and at the very least myopic — not to take seriously the downstream consequences of the damage to the American people’s psyches when planning how our system can adapt to ensure that there is access to care and treatment.

This is especially true when you consider the following:

• It is very difficult to diagnose and treat mental health symptoms in a primary care setting that is already overburdened. Doing so results in delayed treatment and increased costs.
• In the long term, COVID-19 survivors will overburden the already underfunded mental healthcare system.
• Additional unforeseen psychological outcomes stem from the myriad traumas of events in 2020 (eg, racial unrest, children out of school, loss of jobs, the recent election).

Psychiatric disorders are notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat in the outpatient primary care setting, which is why mental health professionals will need to be a more integral part of the postpandemic treatment model and should be represented on the advisory board. Each year in the United States, there are more than 8 million doctors’ visits for depression, and more than half of these are in the primary care setting. Yet fewer than half of those patients leave with a diagnosis of depression or are treated for it.

Historically, screening for depression in the primary care setting is difficult given its broad presentation of symptoms, which include nonspecific physical complaints, such as digestive problems, headaches, insomnia, or general aches and pains. These shortcomings exist despite multiple changes in guidelines, such as regarding the use of self-screening tools and general screening for specific populations, such as postpartum women.

But screening alone has not been an effective strategy, especially when certain groups are less likely to be screened. These include older adults, Black persons, and men, all of whom are at higher risk for mortality after COVID-19. There is a failure to consistently apply standards of universal screening across all patient groups, and even if it occurs, there is a failure to establish reliable treatment and follow-up regimens. As clinicians, imagine how challenging diagnosis and treatment of more complicated psychiatric syndromes, such as somatoform disorder, will be in the primary care setting after the pandemic.

When almost two-thirds of symptoms in primary care are already “medically unexplained,” how do we expect primary care doctors to differentiate between those presenting with vague coronavirus-related “brain fog,” the run of the mill worrywart, and the 16%-34% with legitimate hypochondriasis of somatoform disorder who won’t improve without the involvement of a mental health provider?
 

A specialty in short supply

The mental health system we have now is inadequate for those who are currently diagnosed with mental disorders. Before the pandemic, emergency departments were boarding increasing numbers of patients with psychiatric illness because beds on inpatient units were unavailable. Individuals with insurance faced difficulty finding psychiatrists or psychotherapists who took insurance or who were availabile to accept new patients, given the growing shortage of providers in general. Community health centers continued to grapple with decreases in federal and state funding despite public political support for parity. Individuals with substance use faced few options for the outpatient, residential, or pharmacologic treatment that many needed to maintain sobriety.

Since the pandemic, we have seen rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal thinking increase among adults and youth while many clinics have been forced to lay off employees, reduce services, or close their doors. As psychiatrists, we not only see the lack of treatment options for our patients but are forced to find creative solutions to meet their needs. How are we supposed to adapt (or feel confident) when individuals with or without previous mental illness face downstream consequences after COVID-19 when not one of our own is represented in the advisory board? How can we feel confident that downstream solutions acknowledge and address the intricacy of the behavioral health system that we, as mental health providers, know so intimately?

And what about the cumulative impact of everything else that has happened in 2020 in addition to the pandemic?! Although cataloging the various negative events that have happened this year is beyond the scope of this discussion, such lists have been compiled by the mainstream media and include the Australian brush fires, the crisis in Armenia, racial protests, economic uncertainties, and the run-up to and occurrence of the 2020 presidential election. Research is solid in its assertion that chronic stress can disturb our immune and cardiovascular systems, as well as mental health, leading to depression or anxiety. As a result of the pandemic itself, plus the events of this year, mental health providers are already warning not only of the current trauma underlying our day-to-day lives but also that of years to come.

More importantly, healthcare providers, both those represented by members of the advisory board and those who are not, are not immune to these issues. Before the pandemic, rates of suicide among doctors were already above average compared with other professions. After witnessing death repeatedly, self-isolation, the risk for infection to family, and dealing with the continued resistance to wearing masks, who knows what the eventual psychological toll our medical workforce will be?

Mental health providers have stepped up to the plate to provide care outside of traditional models to meet the needs that patients have now. One survey found that 81% of behavioral health providers began using telehealth for the first time in the past 6 months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. If not for the sake of the mental health of the Biden-Harris advisory board members themselves, who as doctors are likely to downplay the impact when struggling with mental health concerns in their own lives, a mental health provider deserves a seat at the table.

Plus, the outcomes speak for themselves when behavioral health providers collaborate with primary care providers to give treatment or when mental health experts are members of health crisis teams. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the Biden-Harris advisory board?


Kali Cyrus, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. She sees patients in private practice and offers consultation services in diversity strategy. Ranna Parekh, MD, MPH, is past deputy medical director and director of diversity and health equity for the American Psychiatric Association. She is currently a consultant psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and the chief diversity and inclusion officer at the American College of Cardiology.
 

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

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a primary humoral immunodeficiency (PID) are 91% more likely to have a psychiatric disorder and 84% more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior, compared against those without the condition, new research shows.

Results showed that this association, which was stronger in women, could not be fully explained by comorbid autoimmune diseases or by familial confounding.

These findings have important clinical implications, study investigator Josef Isung, MD, PhD, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, told Medscape Medical News.

Clinicians managing patients with PID “should be aware of this increased association with psychiatric disorders and perhaps screen for them,” said Isung.

The study was published in the November issue of JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Registry study

Mounting evidence suggests immune disruption plays a role in psychiatric disorders through a range of mechanisms, including altered neurodevelopment. However, little is known about the neuropsychiatric consequences resulting from the underproduction of homeostatic antibodies.

PIDs involve a deficiency in antibody production, mainly affecting immunoglobulin, “or the humoral aspect of the immune system,” said Isung. They’re associated with an increased risk for recurrent infections and of developing autoimmune diseases.

The immunodeficiency can be severe, even life threatening, but can also be relatively mild. One of the less severe PID types is selective IgA deficiency, which is linked to increased infections within the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), an important immune barrier.

Experts have long suspected that infections within the MALT are associated with certain forms of psychopathology in children, particularly obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders.

While patients with this selective IgA subtype may be at some increased risk for infection and autoimmune disease, their overall health otherwise is good, said Isung.

The prevalence of PIDs ranges from about 1:250 to 1:20,000, depending on the type of humoral immunodeficiency, although most would fall into the relatively rare category, he added.

Using several linked national Swedish registries, researchers identified individuals with any PID diagnosis affecting immunoglobulin levels, their full siblings, and those with a lifetime diagnosis of selective IgA deficiency. In addition, they collected data on autoimmune diseases.

The study outcome was a lifetime record of a psychiatric disorder, a suicide attempt, or death by suicide.
 

Strong link to autism

Researchers identified 8378 patients (59% women) with PID affecting immunoglobulin levels (median age at first diagnosis, 47.8 years). They compared this group with almost 14.3 million subjects without PID.

In those with PID, 27.6% had an autoimmune disease vs 6.8% of those without PID, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

About 20.5% of those with PID and 10.7% of unexposed subjects had at least one diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder.

In a model adjusted for year of birth, sex, and history of autoimmune disease, subjects with PID had a 91% higher likelihood of any psychiatric disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.91; 95% CI, 1.81 - 2.01; P < .001) vs their counterparts without PID.

The AORs for individual psychiatric disorders ranged from 1.34 (95% CI, 1.17 - 1.54; P < .001) for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to 2.99 (95% CI, 2.42 - 3.70; P < .001) for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs)

It’s unclear why the association with PID was strongest for autism, “but being a neurodevelopmental disorder, maybe autism is logically more associated with this type of disruption,” said Isung.

Research suggests that immunologic disruption may play a role in ASD, either through altered maternal immune function in utero or through immune disruption after birth, the researchers note.

Compared to those without PID, individuals with it had a significantly increased likelihood of any suicidal behavior (AOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.66 - 2.04, P < .001) as well as individual outcomes of death by suicide and suicide attempts.

The association with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior was markedly stronger for exposure to both PID and autoimmune disease than for exposure to either of these alone, which suggest an additive effect for these immune-related conditions.
 

Sex differences

“It was unclear to us why women seemed particularly vulnerable,” said Isung. He noted that PIDs are generally about as common in women as in men, but women tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

The analysis of the sibling cohort also revealed an elevated risk for psychiatric disorders, including ASD and suicidal behavior, but to a lesser degree.

“From this we could infer that at least part of the associations would be genetic, but part would be related to the disruption in itself,” said Isung.

An analysis examining selective IgA subtype also revealed a link with psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior, suggesting this link is not exclusive to severe PID cases.

“Our conclusion here was that it seems like PID itself, or the immune disruption in itself, could explain the association rather than the burden of illness,” said Isung.

However, he acknowledged that the long-term stress and mental health fallout of having a chronic illness like PID may also explain some of the increased risk for psychiatric disorders.

This study, he said, provides more evidence that immune disruptions affect neurodevelopment and the brain. However, he added, the underlying mechanism still isn’t fully understood.

The results highlight the need to raise awareness of the association between immunodeficiency and mental illness, including suicidality among clinicians, patients, and advocates.

These findings may also have implications in patients with other immune deficiencies, said Isung, noting, “it would be interesting to further explore associations with other immunocompromised populations.”
 

No surprises

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Igor Galynker, MD, professor of psychiatry at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said the study was “very well-done” and used “reliable and well-controlled” databases.

However, he added, the results “are neither particularly dramatic nor conclusive” as it makes sense that medical illnesses like PID would “increase risk of psychopathology,” said Galynker.

PID patients are much more likely to have contact with clinicians and to receive a psychiatric diagnosis, he said.

“People with a chronic illness are more stressed and generally have high incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. In addition to that, they may be more likely to be diagnosed with those conditions because they see a clinician more frequently.”

However, that reasoning doesn’t apply to autism, which manifests in early childhood and so is unlikely to be the result of stress, said Galynker, which is why he believes the finding that ASD is the psychiatric outcome most strongly associated with PID is “the most convincing.”

Galynker wasn’t surprised that the association between PID and psychiatric illnesses, and suicidal behaviors, was stronger among women.

“Women attempt suicide four times more often than men to begin with, so you would expect this to be more pronounced” in those with PID.

The study was supported by grants from the Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute; Stockholm Care Services; the Soderstrom Konig Foundation; and the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Foundation. Isung and Galynker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

“Defund the police”: It’s a slogan, or perhaps a battle cry, that has emerged from the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to race-related police brutality and concerns that people of color are profiled, targeted, arrested, charged, manhandled, and killed by law enforcement in a disproportionate and unjust manner. It crosses into our realm as psychiatrists as mental health emergency calls are handled by the police and not by mental health professionals. The result is sometimes tragic: As many as half of police shootings involve people with psychiatric disorders, and the hope is that many of the police shootings could be avoided if crises were handed by mental health clinicians instead of, or in cooperation with, the police.

At best, police officers receive a week of specialized, crisis intervention training about how to approach those with psychiatric disorders; most officers receive no training. This leaves psychiatry as the only field where medical crises are routinely handled by the police – it is demeaning and embarrassing for some of our patients and dangerous for others. The reality remains, however, that there are times when psychiatric disorders result in violent behavior, and patients being taken for involuntary treatment often resist transport, so either way there is risk, both to the patient and to anyone who responds to a call for assistance.

Early this month, the office of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that a major change would be made in how mental health calls to 911 are handled in two “high-need” areas. The mayor’s website states:

“Beginning in February 2021, new Mental Health Teams will use their physical and mental health expertise, and experience in crisis response to de-escalate emergency situations, will help reduce the number of times police will need to respond to 911 mental health calls in these precincts. These teams will have the expertise to respond to a range of behavioral health problems, such as suicide attempts, substance misuse, and serious mental illness, as well as physical health problems, which can be exacerbated by or mask mental health problems. NYC Health + Hospitals will train and provide ongoing technical assistance and support. In selecting team members for this program, FDNY will prioritize professionals with significant experience with mental health crises.”

The press release goes on to say that, in situations where there is a weapon or reason to believe there is a risk of violence, the police will be dispatched along with the new mental health team.

“This is the first time in our history that health professionals will be the default responders to mental health emergencies,” New York City First Lady Chirlane McCray said as she announced the new program. “Treating mental health crises as mental health challenges and not public safety ones is the modern and more appropriate approach.”

New York City is not the first city to employ this model. In the United States, the CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program in Eugene, Ore., has been run by the White Bird Clinic since 1989 as part of a community policing initiative. Last year, the team responded to 24,000 calls and police backup was required on only 150 of those responses. The CAHOOTS website states:

“The CAHOOTS model has been in the spotlight recently as our nation struggles to reimagine public safety. The program mobilizes two-person teams consisting of a medic (a nurse, paramedic, or EMT) and a crisis worker who has substantial training and experience in the mental health field. The CAHOOTS teams deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, suicide threats, and more, relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques. CAHOOTS staff are not law enforcement officers and do not carry weapons; their training and experience are the tools they use to ensure a non-violent resolution of crisis situations. They also handle non-emergent medical issues, avoiding costly ambulance transport and emergency room treatment.”

Other cities in the United States are also looking at implementing programs where mental health teams, and not the police, respond to emergency calls. Last year, Oakland, Calif.’s city council invested $40,000 in research to assess how they could best implement a program like the one in Eugene. They hope to begin the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACROS) next year. Sigal Samuel writes in a Vox article, “The goal is to launch the pilot next year with funding from the city budget, and although supporters are not yet sure what its size and duration will be, they’re hopeful it’ll make a big difference to Oakland’s overpoliced community of people without homes. They were among those who first called for a non-policing approach.”

The model is not unique to the United States. In 2005, Stockholm started a program with a psychiatric ambulance – equipped with comfortable seating rather than a stretcher – to respond to mental health emergencies. The ambulance responds to 130 calls a month. It is staffed with a driver and two psychiatric nurses, and for half of the calls, the police also come. While the Swedish program was not about removing resources from the police, it has relieved the police of the responsibility for many psychiatric emergencies.

The New York City program will be modeled after the CAHOOTS initiative in Eugene. It differs from the mobile crisis response services in many other cities because CAHOOTS is hooked directly into the 911 emergency services system. Its website notes that the program has saved money:

“The cost savings are considerable. The CAHOOTS program budget is about $2.1 million annually, while the combined annual budgets for the Eugene and Springfield police departments are $90 million. In 2017, the CAHOOTS teams answered 17% of the Eugene Police Department’s overall call volume. The program saves the city of Eugene an estimated $8.5 million in public safety spending annually.”

Some worry there is an unpredictable aspect to calls for psychiatric emergencies, and the potential for mental health professions to be injured or killed. Annette Hanson, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Maryland, Baltimore, voiced her concerns, “While multidisciplinary teams are useful, there have been rare cases of violence against responding mental health providers. People with serious mental illness are rarely violent but their dangerousness is unpredictable and cannot be predicted by case screening.”

Daniel Felts is a mental health crisis counselor who has worked at CAHOOTS for the past 4* years. He has responded to about 8,000 calls, and called for police backup only three times to request an immediate "Code 3 cover" when someone's safety has been in danger. Mr. Felts calls the police about once a month for concerns that do not require an immediate response for safety.* “Over the last 4 years, I am only aware of three instances when a team member’s safety was compromised because of a client’s violent behavior. No employee has been seriously physically harmed. In 30 years, with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of calls responded to, no CAHOOTS worker has ever been killed, shot, or stabbed in the line of duty,” Mr. Felts noted.

Emergency calls are screened. “It is not uncommon for CAHOOTS to be dispatched to ‘stage’ for calls involving active disputes or acutely suicidal individuals where means are present. “Staging” entails us parking roughly a mile away while police make first contact and advise whether it is safe for CAHOOTS to engage.”

Mr. Felts went on to discuss the program’s relationship with the community. “I believe that one of the biggest things that keeps us safe is the community’s knowledge and understanding of our service and how we operate. Having operated in Eugene for 30 years, our service is well understood to be one that does not kill, harm, or violate personal boundaries or liberties.”

Would a program like the ones in Stockholm or in Eugene work in other places? Eugene is a city with a population of 172,000 with a low crime rate. Whether a program implemented in one city can be mimicked in another very different city is not clear.

Paul Appelbaum, MD, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York, is optimistic about New York City’s forthcoming program.

“The proposed pilot project in NYC is a real step forward. Work that we’ve done looking at fatal encounters involving the police found that roughly 25% of all deaths at the hands of the police are of people with mental illness. In many of those cases, police were initially called to bring people who were clearly troubled for psychiatric evaluation, but as the situation escalated, the police turned to their weapons to control it, which led to a fatal outcome. Taking police out of the picture whenever possible in favor of trained mental health personnel is clearly a better approach. It will be important for the city to collect good outcome data to enable independent evaluation of the pilot project – not something that political entities are inclined toward, but a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of this approach.”

There are questions that remain about the new program. Mayor de Blasio’s office has not released information about which areas of the city are being chosen for the new program, how much the program will cost, or what the funding source will be. If it can be implemented safely and effectively, it has the potential to provide more sensitive care to patients in crisis, and to save lives.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

*Correction, 11/27/2020: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of years Daniel Felts has worked at CAHOOTS.

Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.¹ For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.

Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.

In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.

Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.² There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.^3,4

Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?

As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.

It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.⁵ The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.⁶ Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.

Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.⁷ The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.

We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.

At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.

We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.

References

1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).

2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.

3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.

4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.

6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.

7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
 

Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.¹ For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.

Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.

In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.

Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.² There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.^3,4

Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?

As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.

It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.⁵ The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.⁶ Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.

Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.⁷ The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.

We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.

At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.

We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.

References

1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).

2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.

3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.

4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.

6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.

7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
 

Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Prior to George Floyd’s death, Officer Thomas Lane reportedly said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever” to his colleague, Officer Derek Chauvin.¹ For those of us who frequently work with law enforcement and in correctional facilities, “excited delirium” is a common refrain. It would be too facile to dismiss the concept as an attempt by police officers to inappropriately use medically sounding jargon to justify violence. “Excited delirium” is a reminder of the complex situations faced by police officers and the need for better medical training, as well as the attention of research on this commonly used label.

Many law enforcement facilities, in particular jails that receive inmates directly from the community, will have large posters educating staff on the “signs of excited delirium.” The concept is not covered in residency training programs, or many of the leading textbooks of psychiatry. Yet, it has become common parlance in law enforcement. Officers in training receive education programs on excited delirium, although those are rarely conducted by clinicians.

In our practice and experience, “excited delirium” has been used by law enforcement officers to describe mood lability from the stress of arrest, acute agitation from stimulant or phencyclidine intoxication, actual delirium from a medical comorbidity, sociopathic aggression for the purpose of violence, and incoherence from psychosis, along with simply describing a person not following direction from a police officer.

Our differential diagnosis when informed that someone was described by a nonclinician as having so-called excited delirium is wider than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). In addition, the term comes at a cost. Its use has been implicated in police-related deaths and brutality.² There is also concern of its disproportionate application to Black people.^3,4

Nonetheless, the term “excited delirium” can sometimes accurately describe critical medical situations. We particularly remember a case of altered mental status from serotonin syndrome, a case of delirium tremens from alcohol withdrawal, and a case of life-threatening dehydration in the context of stimulant intoxication. Each of those cases was appropriately recognized as problematic by perceptive and caring police officers. It is important for police officers to recognize these life-threatening conditions, and they need the language to do so. Having a common label that can be used across professional fields and law enforcement departments to express medical concern in the context of aggressive behavior has value. The question is: can psychiatry help law enforcement describe situations more accurately?

As physicians, it would be overly simple to point out the limited understanding of medical information by police and correctional officers. Naming many behaviors poses significant challenges for psychiatrists and nonclinicians. Examples include the use of the word “agitation” to describe mild restlessness, “delusional” for uncooperative, and “irritable” for opinionated. We must also be cognizant of the infinite demands placed on police officers and that labels must be available to them to express complex situations without being forced to use medical diagnosis and terminology for which they do not have the license or expertise. It is possible that “excited delirium” serves an important role; the problem may not be as much “excited delirium,” the term itself, as the diversion of its use to justify poor policing.

It must be acknowledged that debates, concerns, poor nomenclature, confusing labels, and different interpretations of diagnoses and symptoms are not unusual things in psychiatry, even among professionals. In the 1970s, the famous American and British study of diagnostic criteria, showed that psychiatrists used the diagnosis of schizophrenia to describe vastly different patients.⁵ The findings of the study were a significant cause of the paradigm shift of the DSM in its 3rd edition. More recently, the DSM-5 field trials suggested that the field of psychiatry continues to struggle with this problem.⁶ Nonetheless, each edition of the DSM presents a new opportunity to discuss, refine, and improve our ability to communicate while emphasizing the importance of improving our common language.

Emergency physicians face delirious patients brought to them from the community on a regular basis. As such, it makes sense that they have been at the forefront of this issue and the American College of Emergency Physicians has recognized excited delirium as a condition since 2009.⁷ The emergency physician literature points out that death from excited delirium also happens in hospitals and is not a unique consequence of law enforcement. There is no accepted definition. Reported symptoms include agitation, bizarre behavior, tirelessness, unusual strength, pain tolerance, noncompliance, attraction to reflective surfaces, stupor, fear, panic, hyperthermia, inappropriate clothing, tachycardia, tachypnea, diaphoresis, seizure, and mydriasis. Etiology is suspected to be from catecholaminergic endogenous stress-related catecholamines and exogenous catecholaminergic drugs. In particular is the importance of dopamine through the use of stimulants, specifically cocaine. The literature makes some reference to management, including recommendations aimed at keeping patients on one of their sides, using de-escalation techniques, and performing evaluation in quiet rooms.

We certainly condone and commend efforts to understand and define this condition in the medical literature. The indiscriminate use of “excited delirium” to represent all sorts of behaviors by nonmedical personnel warrants intelligent, relevant, and researched commentary by physicians. There are several potentially appropriate ways forward. First, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting and does not belong in the DSM. That distinction in itself would be potentially useful to law enforcement officers, who might welcome the opportunity to create their own nomenclature and classification. Second, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium is not a useful diagnosis in the clinical setting but warrants a definition nonetheless, akin to the ways homelessness and extreme poverty are defined in the DSM; this definition could take into account the wide use of the term by nonclinicians. Third, psychiatry may decide that excited delirium warrants a clinical diagnosis that warrants a distinction and clarification from the current delirium diagnosis with the hyperactive specifier.

At this time, the status quo doesn’t protect or help clinicians in their respective fields of work. “Excited delirium” is routinely used by law enforcement officers without clear meaning. Experts have difficulty pointing out the poor or ill-intended use of the term without a precise or accepted definition to rely on. Some of the proposed criteria, such as “unusual strength,” have unclear scientific legitimacy. Some, such as agitation or bizarre behavior, often have different meanings to nonphysicians. Some, such as poor clothing, may facilitate discrimination. The current state allows some professionals to hide their limited attempts at de-escalation by describing the person of interest as having excited delirium. On the other hand, the current state also prevents well-intended officers from using proper terminology that is understood by others as describing a concerning behavior reliably.

We wonder whether excited delirium is an important facet of the current dilemma of reconsidering the role of law enforcement in society. Frequent use of “excited delirium” by police officers is itself a testament to their desire to have assistance or delegation of certain duties to other social services, such as health care. In some ways, police officers face a difficult position: Admission that a behavior may be attributable to excited delirium should warrant a medical evaluation and, thus, render the person of interest a patient rather than a suspect. As such, this person interacting with police officers should be treated as someone in need of medical care, which makes many interventions – including neck compression – seemingly inappropriate. The frequent use of “excited delirium” suggests that law enforcement is ill-equipped in handling many situations and that an attempt to diversify the composition and funding of emergency response might be warranted. Psychiatry should be at the forefront of this research and effort.

References

1. State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (4th Judicial District, 2020 May 29).

2. J Forensic Leg Med. 2008 May 15(4):227-30.

3. “Excited delirium: Rare and deadly syndrome or a condition to excuse deaths by police?” Florida Today. 2020 Jan 20.

4. J Forensic Sci. 1997 Jan;42(1):25-31.

5. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1971;25(2):123-30.

6. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan;170(1):59-70.

7. White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome. ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force. 2009 Sep 10.
 

Dr. Amendolara is a first-year psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. He spent years advocating for survivors of rape and domestic violence at the Crime Victims Treatment Center in New York and conducted public health research at Lourdes Center for Public Health in Camden, N.J. Dr. Amendolara has no disclosures. Dr. Malik is a first-year psychiatry resident at the University of California, San Diego. She has a background in policy and grassroots organizing through her time working at the National Coalition for the Homeless and the Women’s Law Project. Dr. Malik has no disclosures. Dr. Abrams is a forensic psychiatrist and attorney in San Diego. He is an expert in addictionology, behavioral toxicology, psychopharmacology, and correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego. Among his writings are chapters about competency in national textbooks. Dr. Abrams has no disclosures. Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

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

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope,” Martin Luther King, Jr.

This holiday season will be like no other. We will remember it for the rest of our lives, and we will look back to see how we faced the holidays during a pandemic.

DjelicS/Getty Images

Like the rest of 2020, the holidays will need to be reimagined. Years and even decades of tradition will be broken as we place health above merriment.

Here are a few tips to help all of us and our patients make the most of this holiday season.

• Reprioritize: This holiday season will be about depth not breadth, quality not quantity, and less not more. Trips are canceled and gatherings have shrunk. We are not running from store to store or party to party. Instead, you will find yourself surrounded by fewer friends and family. Some will be alone to optimally protect their health and the health of others. Do your best to focus on the half-full portion.
• Embrace change: Don’t compare or try to make this year like previous years. Be creative and try to find ways to make a new format fun. Meeting during the day and limiting alcohol intake can assist in making sure everyone stays safe. It has been interesting to see how many of my patients have decreased their alcohol use during quarantine. I hope this pattern will continue over the next weeks and months.
• Practice self-care: As health care professionals, we must remember the old adage “physician, heal thyself.” This year has been so difficult for almost all of us. It was filled with unprecedented levels of personal and professional stress. Holidays are often about what we can do for others, but this year we may need to place self-care first. Do what brings you happiness.

With lines between home and work even more eroded as we practice telemedicine, it is important to take time off. Even though you aren’t traveling, you can still disconnect from work. Set up a schedule and stick to it making sure you take plenty of time to rest and enjoy. Many of us have been working extremely long hours and a break is so needed. Take it if you possibly can. Detox from your screen! Limit the news. Creativity and productivity will be enhanced in 2021 if we can come in recharged.

For those remaining on the front lines, be patient; the end is nearing. Take care of yourself when you are not working. We are all so grateful to those in our field who have sacrificed so much to care for others. Eat, drink, and rest well to keep your immune system strong.

• Acknowledge your negative emotions: As we all know, if you try to deny negative emotions, they continue to pop up. If we give them time and space to be felt, we will find they diminish in intensity. Long work hours may have prevented us from feeling our emotions, so don’t be surprised if they surface when we take a break.

Let yourself feel the sadness for what you have experienced this year. Be open about missing those who can’t be with you because of travel or other restrictions. Let yourself feel the disappointment about your holiday travel plans that you can’t embark upon.

You may elect to share these emotions with someone close to you or with a professional. To paraphrase Carl Jung, “what we resist, persists,” so don’t try to hide from your negative emotions. Most of us had lots of them in 2020, so don’t be shy about admitting it.

• Focus on growth: What have we learned from 2020 and how can we be better equipped in 2021 and beyond?

Trauma can bring growth not just disorder. This year has returned well-deserved prestige to our fields. We are being lauded as heroes as we have scarified our health and the health of our loved ones to serve others. Can we choose to celebrate our accomplishments?

We have become more resilient and learned to continue on in the face of great hardship. Many of us have gained confidence as we confronted this historic challenge. As we have been reminded of death daily, we learn to appreciate life more fully and not take any day for granted.

I am proud to be a physician during this pandemic, and I hope you are, too!

• Find joy: Often times, we find real happiness in smaller moments and experiences. For many, this time of year is filled with so much stress that it can be hard to carve out moments of joy. As we may be less busy socially this holiday season, might we find even more joy?

Joy can only be experienced in the present moment. Tap into all your senses. Eat slowly making sure to smell and taste every bite. Cherish those who can still gather at your table. If you find yourself alone, embrace that experience. Safety must continue to come first, and we can’t let down our guard now.

• Reflect: New Year’s Eve is always a time for reflection and hope for the future. Most of us will be glad to see 2020 in the rearview mirror. With multiple and very promising vaccines on the horizon, we can anticipate a brighter future. We must continue to work hard; remain patient; and be creative, resilient, and optimistic. Let’s try to fill our days with hope and purpose and work together to achieve a brighter future for all.
•  

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow,” Albert Einstein


Wishing you health and happiness in this holiday season and beyond.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She also is founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope,” Martin Luther King, Jr.

This holiday season will be like no other. We will remember it for the rest of our lives, and we will look back to see how we faced the holidays during a pandemic.

DjelicS/Getty Images

Like the rest of 2020, the holidays will need to be reimagined. Years and even decades of tradition will be broken as we place health above merriment.

Here are a few tips to help all of us and our patients make the most of this holiday season.

• Reprioritize: This holiday season will be about depth not breadth, quality not quantity, and less not more. Trips are canceled and gatherings have shrunk. We are not running from store to store or party to party. Instead, you will find yourself surrounded by fewer friends and family. Some will be alone to optimally protect their health and the health of others. Do your best to focus on the half-full portion.
• Embrace change: Don’t compare or try to make this year like previous years. Be creative and try to find ways to make a new format fun. Meeting during the day and limiting alcohol intake can assist in making sure everyone stays safe. It has been interesting to see how many of my patients have decreased their alcohol use during quarantine. I hope this pattern will continue over the next weeks and months.
• Practice self-care: As health care professionals, we must remember the old adage “physician, heal thyself.” This year has been so difficult for almost all of us. It was filled with unprecedented levels of personal and professional stress. Holidays are often about what we can do for others, but this year we may need to place self-care first. Do what brings you happiness.

With lines between home and work even more eroded as we practice telemedicine, it is important to take time off. Even though you aren’t traveling, you can still disconnect from work. Set up a schedule and stick to it making sure you take plenty of time to rest and enjoy. Many of us have been working extremely long hours and a break is so needed. Take it if you possibly can. Detox from your screen! Limit the news. Creativity and productivity will be enhanced in 2021 if we can come in recharged.

For those remaining on the front lines, be patient; the end is nearing. Take care of yourself when you are not working. We are all so grateful to those in our field who have sacrificed so much to care for others. Eat, drink, and rest well to keep your immune system strong.

• Acknowledge your negative emotions: As we all know, if you try to deny negative emotions, they continue to pop up. If we give them time and space to be felt, we will find they diminish in intensity. Long work hours may have prevented us from feeling our emotions, so don’t be surprised if they surface when we take a break.

Let yourself feel the sadness for what you have experienced this year. Be open about missing those who can’t be with you because of travel or other restrictions. Let yourself feel the disappointment about your holiday travel plans that you can’t embark upon.

You may elect to share these emotions with someone close to you or with a professional. To paraphrase Carl Jung, “what we resist, persists,” so don’t try to hide from your negative emotions. Most of us had lots of them in 2020, so don’t be shy about admitting it.

• Focus on growth: What have we learned from 2020 and how can we be better equipped in 2021 and beyond?

Trauma can bring growth not just disorder. This year has returned well-deserved prestige to our fields. We are being lauded as heroes as we have scarified our health and the health of our loved ones to serve others. Can we choose to celebrate our accomplishments?

We have become more resilient and learned to continue on in the face of great hardship. Many of us have gained confidence as we confronted this historic challenge. As we have been reminded of death daily, we learn to appreciate life more fully and not take any day for granted.

I am proud to be a physician during this pandemic, and I hope you are, too!

• Find joy: Often times, we find real happiness in smaller moments and experiences. For many, this time of year is filled with so much stress that it can be hard to carve out moments of joy. As we may be less busy socially this holiday season, might we find even more joy?

Joy can only be experienced in the present moment. Tap into all your senses. Eat slowly making sure to smell and taste every bite. Cherish those who can still gather at your table. If you find yourself alone, embrace that experience. Safety must continue to come first, and we can’t let down our guard now.

• Reflect: New Year’s Eve is always a time for reflection and hope for the future. Most of us will be glad to see 2020 in the rearview mirror. With multiple and very promising vaccines on the horizon, we can anticipate a brighter future. We must continue to work hard; remain patient; and be creative, resilient, and optimistic. Let’s try to fill our days with hope and purpose and work together to achieve a brighter future for all.
•  

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow,” Albert Einstein


Wishing you health and happiness in this holiday season and beyond.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She also is founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope,” Martin Luther King, Jr.

This holiday season will be like no other. We will remember it for the rest of our lives, and we will look back to see how we faced the holidays during a pandemic.

DjelicS/Getty Images

Like the rest of 2020, the holidays will need to be reimagined. Years and even decades of tradition will be broken as we place health above merriment.

Here are a few tips to help all of us and our patients make the most of this holiday season.

• Reprioritize: This holiday season will be about depth not breadth, quality not quantity, and less not more. Trips are canceled and gatherings have shrunk. We are not running from store to store or party to party. Instead, you will find yourself surrounded by fewer friends and family. Some will be alone to optimally protect their health and the health of others. Do your best to focus on the half-full portion.
• Embrace change: Don’t compare or try to make this year like previous years. Be creative and try to find ways to make a new format fun. Meeting during the day and limiting alcohol intake can assist in making sure everyone stays safe. It has been interesting to see how many of my patients have decreased their alcohol use during quarantine. I hope this pattern will continue over the next weeks and months.
• Practice self-care: As health care professionals, we must remember the old adage “physician, heal thyself.” This year has been so difficult for almost all of us. It was filled with unprecedented levels of personal and professional stress. Holidays are often about what we can do for others, but this year we may need to place self-care first. Do what brings you happiness.

With lines between home and work even more eroded as we practice telemedicine, it is important to take time off. Even though you aren’t traveling, you can still disconnect from work. Set up a schedule and stick to it making sure you take plenty of time to rest and enjoy. Many of us have been working extremely long hours and a break is so needed. Take it if you possibly can. Detox from your screen! Limit the news. Creativity and productivity will be enhanced in 2021 if we can come in recharged.

For those remaining on the front lines, be patient; the end is nearing. Take care of yourself when you are not working. We are all so grateful to those in our field who have sacrificed so much to care for others. Eat, drink, and rest well to keep your immune system strong.

• Acknowledge your negative emotions: As we all know, if you try to deny negative emotions, they continue to pop up. If we give them time and space to be felt, we will find they diminish in intensity. Long work hours may have prevented us from feeling our emotions, so don’t be surprised if they surface when we take a break.

Let yourself feel the sadness for what you have experienced this year. Be open about missing those who can’t be with you because of travel or other restrictions. Let yourself feel the disappointment about your holiday travel plans that you can’t embark upon.

You may elect to share these emotions with someone close to you or with a professional. To paraphrase Carl Jung, “what we resist, persists,” so don’t try to hide from your negative emotions. Most of us had lots of them in 2020, so don’t be shy about admitting it.

• Focus on growth: What have we learned from 2020 and how can we be better equipped in 2021 and beyond?

Trauma can bring growth not just disorder. This year has returned well-deserved prestige to our fields. We are being lauded as heroes as we have scarified our health and the health of our loved ones to serve others. Can we choose to celebrate our accomplishments?

We have become more resilient and learned to continue on in the face of great hardship. Many of us have gained confidence as we confronted this historic challenge. As we have been reminded of death daily, we learn to appreciate life more fully and not take any day for granted.

I am proud to be a physician during this pandemic, and I hope you are, too!

• Find joy: Often times, we find real happiness in smaller moments and experiences. For many, this time of year is filled with so much stress that it can be hard to carve out moments of joy. As we may be less busy socially this holiday season, might we find even more joy?

Joy can only be experienced in the present moment. Tap into all your senses. Eat slowly making sure to smell and taste every bite. Cherish those who can still gather at your table. If you find yourself alone, embrace that experience. Safety must continue to come first, and we can’t let down our guard now.

• Reflect: New Year’s Eve is always a time for reflection and hope for the future. Most of us will be glad to see 2020 in the rearview mirror. With multiple and very promising vaccines on the horizon, we can anticipate a brighter future. We must continue to work hard; remain patient; and be creative, resilient, and optimistic. Let’s try to fill our days with hope and purpose and work together to achieve a brighter future for all.
•  

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow,” Albert Einstein


Wishing you health and happiness in this holiday season and beyond.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018). She also is founder of the Bekindr Global Initiative, a movement aimed at cultivating kindness in the world.

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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

A commonly used newborn hearing test shows promise in the early detection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), new research shows.  

Results from one of the largest studies of its kind show the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, which is carried out on most newborns, represents “a huge untapped potential” to detect autism, lead author Oren Miron, research associate, department of biomedical informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a PhD candidate at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, said in an interview.

“The findings further reinforce our understanding that autism, in many cases, has a sensorial and auditory aspect to it,” said Mr. Miron, adding that an adverse response to sound is one of the earliest behavioral signs of autism.

The research was published online Oct. 31 in Autism Research.
 

Early intervention critical

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which involves problems in social communication and interaction, affects an estimated 1 in 59 children. Early identification and intervention are critical for improving outcomes and decreasing the economic burden associated with ASD.

The ABR test, which is used for Universal Newborn Hearing Screening (UNHS), uses surface electrodes to measure auditory nerve and brainstem responses to sound.

Previous studies identified abnormal ABR amplitude in children with ASD. However, it’s unclear whether healthy newborns who later develop autism also show ABR differences vs those who don’t develop the disorder.

Researchers used UNHS data, which allowed them to examine a larger, younger, and healthier sample compared with previous studies. The study included 321 newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 138,844 controls without a subsequent ASD diagnosis.

The mean ABR testing age was 1.76 days for newborns later diagnosed with ASD and 1.86 for those in the non-ASD group.

The ASD group was 77% male and the non-ASD group was 51% male. The rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission was 8% in the ASD group and 10% in the non-ASD group.

The hearing test involves placing an earpiece in the baby’s ear and delivering a click sound at 35 dB above normal hearing level (nHL) at a rate of 77 clicks per second in the right ear and 79 clicks per second in the left ear.
 

Brainstem abnormalities?

The clicks create electrical activity, which is recorded by a surface electrode and used to extract the ABR waveform. When a sound reaches the brain stem, it creates five consecutive waveforms – waves I, II, III, IV, and V.

Previous studies focused on wave V, which is easiest to detect. The current study used low intensity sound that resulted in a weaker signal.

To overcome this low intensity issue, researchers focused on the negative drop (latency) after the wave V (Vn), which is easier to detect, and on the ABR phase, or entire waveform. They illustrated the differences between the ASD and non-ASD groups in a series of graphs.

Results showed that the ABR phase in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD vs non-ASD group (P < .001). ABR phase in the left ear was also significantly prolonged in the ASD group (P = .021)

Vn latency in the right ear was significantly prolonged in the ASD group compared with the non-ASD group (P = .048); however, this was not the case in the left ear.

The prolongation could mean that the V-negative wave might appear after 8 ms in normally developing children compared with 8.5 or 9 ms in children with autism, said Mr. Miron.

The new study is the first to show V-negative and phase abnormalities are associated with ASD, the authors note. The brainstem prolongation could be due to anatomical abnormalities in the brainstem in individuals with ASD, the researchers added.
 

Present before birth?

The presence of ABR biomarkers of ASD in the first weeks after birth suggests the disorder is likely present before birth in a large group of these individuals, the researchers note.

It’s possible the ABR test could be modified to use lower intensities not only to detect hearing impairment but autism risk, said Mr. Miron. “The test has been optimized to detect hearing impairment, and it does so brilliantly and helps thousands of children. We want to do the same kind of optimization for autism.”

This could lead to earlier behavioral diagnoses, which, in turn, could lead to earlier treatment and better outcomes for children with ASD, said Mr. Miron.

At this time, the level of prolongation to detect ASD is unclear. “I would think a lot of people would want to make it one standard deviation, but it depends on a lot of factors, including for example, whether a baby is preterm,” said Mr. Miron.

More research and better accuracy and specificity are needed before the newborn hearing test is clinically useful.

He noted that the hearing test is only one marker of autism and that it could potentially be combined with other behavioral signs and genetic markers to facilitate earlier diagnosis and treatment and improve outcomes for patients with ASD.

Future research by his group will investigate whether the degree of auditory prolongation relates to autism severity. They also plan to research ASD subgroups including children with comorbid epilepsy.
 

Terrific, clever research

Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, professor, child and adolescent psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview that the study is “terrific” and a “clever use” of an existing dataset.

“They showed a difference between a large group of kids with autism and a large group of kids without.”

However, he added, more research is needed before the test can be used as an autism screening tool.

“In order for this to be a screening test that could be broadly applied you would need to identify a cutoff where you’d think a child was at risk for autism, and if you look at the graphs in the article, there are no clear cutoffs,” said Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele.

To turn this into a useful test, “you would have to establish sensitivity and specificity, you would have to look not just at the comparison of kids with autism and kids without but apply it in a predictive way in a second population.”

The study authors and Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele have reported no relevant financial relationships. Veenstra-VanderWeele is an associate editor at Autism Research, which published the article, but he did not handle or view it before being interviewed.

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

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.

The siblings of patients with bipolar disorder not only face a significantly increased lifetime risk of that affective disorder, but a whole panoply of other psychiatric disorders, according to a new Danish longitudinal national registry study.

“Our data show the healthy siblings of patients with bipolar disorder are themselves at increased risk of developing any kind of psychiatric disorder. Mainly bipolar disorder, but all other kinds as well,” Lars Vedel Kessing, MD, DMSc, said in presenting the results of the soon-to-be-published Danish study at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Moreover, the long-term Danish study also demonstrated that several major psychiatric disorders follow a previously unappreciated bimodal distribution of age of onset in the siblings of patients with bipolar disorder. For example, the incidence of new-onset bipolar disorder and unipolar depression in the siblings was markedly increased during youth and early adulthood, compared with controls drawn from the general Danish population. Then, incidence rates dropped off and plateaued at a lower level in midlife before surging after age 60 years. The same was true for somatoform disorders as well as alcohol and substance use disorders.

“Strategies to prevent onset of psychiatric illness in individuals with a first-generation family history of bipolar disorder should not be limited to adolescence and early adulthood but should be lifelong, likely with differentiated age-specific approaches. And this is not now the case.

“Generally, most researchers and clinicians are focusing more on the early part of life and not the later part of life from age 60 and up, even though this is indeed also a risk period for any kind of psychiatric illness as well as bipolar disorder,” according to Dr. Kessing, professor of psychiatry at the University of Copenhagen.

Dr. Kessing, a past recipient of the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation’s Outstanding Achievement in Mood Disorders Research Award, also described his research group’s successful innovative efforts to prevent first recurrences after a single manic episode or bipolar disorder.
 

Danish national sibling study

The longitudinal registry study included all 19,995 Danish patients with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder during 1995-2017, along with 13,923 of their siblings and 278,460 age- and gender-matched controls drawn from the general population.

The cumulative incidence of any psychiatric disorder was 66% greater in siblings than controls. Leading the way was a 374% increased risk of bipolar disorder.
 

Strategies to prevent a first relapse of bipolar disorder

Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated in a meta-analysis that, with current standard therapies, the risk of recurrence among patients after a single manic or mixed episode is high in both adult and pediatric patients. In three studies of adults, the risk of recurrence was 35% during the first year after recovery from the index episode and 59% at 2 years. In three studies of children and adolescents, the risk of recurrence within 1 year after recovery was 40% in children and 52% in adolescents. This makes a compelling case for starting maintenance therapy following onset of a single manic or mixed episode, according to the investigators.

More than half a decade ago, Dr. Kessing and colleagues demonstrated in a study of 4,714 Danish patients with bipolar disorder who were prescribed lithium while in a psychiatric hospital that those who started the drug for prophylaxis early – that is, following their first psychiatric contact – had a significantly higher response to lithium monotherapy than those who started it only after repeated contacts. Indeed, their risk of nonresponse to lithium prophylaxis as evidenced by repeat hospital admission after a 6-month lithium stabilization period was 13% lower than in those starting the drug later.

Early intervention aiming to stop clinical progression of bipolar disorder intuitively seems appealing, so Dr. Kessing and colleagues created a specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic combining optimized pharmacotherapy and evidence-based group psychoeducation. They then put it to the test in a clinical trial in which 158 patients discharged from an initial psychiatric hospital admission for bipolar disorder were randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorders clinic or standard care.

The rate of psychiatric hospital readmission within the next 6 years was 40% lower in the group assigned to the specialized early intervention clinic. Their rate of adherence to medication – mostly lithium and antipsychotics – was significantly higher. So were their treatment satisfaction scores. And the clincher: The total net direct cost of treatment in the specialized mood disorders clinic averaged 3,194 euro less per patient, an 11% reduction relative to the cost of standard care, a striking economic benefit achieved mainly through avoided hospitalizations.

In a subsequent subgroup analysis of the randomized trial data, Dr. Kessing and coinvestigators demonstrated that young adults with bipolar disorder not only benefited from participation in the specialized outpatient clinic, but they appeared to have derived greater benefit than the older patients. The rehospitalization rate was 67% lower in 18- to 25-year-old patients randomized to the specialized outpatient mood disorder clinic than in standard-care controls, compared with a 32% relative risk reduction in outpatient clinic patients aged 26 years or older).

“There are now several centers around the world which also use this model involving early intervention,” Dr. Kessing said. “It is so important that, when the diagnosis is made for the first time, the patient gets sufficient evidence-based treatment comprised of mood maintenance medication as well as group-based psychoeducation, which is the psychotherapeutic intervention for which there is the strongest evidence of an effect.”

The sibling study was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Kessing reported serving as a consultant to Lundbeck.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kessing LV. ECNP 2020, Session S.25.